Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cameron MacPherson
The Next Giant Leap
2
The Next Giant Leap
ISBN: 9798610551494
Important Notes:
The Next Giant Leap is a work published over several mediums: print, electronic
document and online at https://nextgiantleap.org. A free companion PDF in full
color is available at https://nextgiantleap.org/ngl.pdf
As this work contains nearly two hundred images, graphs and charts, copies
printed in greyscale ink may contain graphics that are not as clear as full-color
versions. In such cases, please download the free companion PDF at
https://nextgiantleap.org/ngl.pdf, consult the free online copy at
https://nextgiantleap.org/universal-energy or purchase a print copy in color at
https://nextgiantleap.org/print-copy
3
The Next Giant Leap
4
The Next Giant Leap
The Next Giant Leap proposes solutions to resource scarcity and climate change.
It outlines blueprints for a system – Universal Energy – that can accomplish this
task by deploying the best energy technologies we have available into a
framework that’s designed to work cooperatively from the ground-up.
5
The Next Giant Leap
6
The Next Giant Leap
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final
sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not
clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its
laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30
cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two
fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a
single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with
new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
7
The Next Giant Leap
8
The Next Giant Leap
Table of Contents
A Future Worth Having p. 13
Chapter One: Mindset p. 35
Chapter Two: The Renewable Revolution p. 47
Chapter Three: A Tale of New Cities p. 71
Chapter Four: The Thorium Backbone p. 81
Chapter Five: Water and Hydrogen p. 133
Chapter Six: Cogeneration p. 145
Chapter Seven: The National Aqueduct p. 159
Chapter Eight: The World’s Largest Battery p. 173
Chapter Nine: Everybody Eats p. 183
Chapter Ten: Materials and Recycling p. 201
Chapter Eleven: The End of Resource Scarcity p. 227
Chapter Twelve: Advanced Infrastructure p. 241
The Next Giant Leap p. 271
Appendix: p. 285
9
The Next Giant Leap
10
The Next Giant Leap
Once we realize we deserve a bright future, letting go of our dark past is the best choice
we ever make.
- Roy T. Bennett
11
The Next Giant Leap
12
The Next Giant Leap
It seems that most everywhere we look today, our future seems destined for
darker times. Even if the polar ice caps weren’t melting before our eyes,1 our
planet’s biodiversity wasn’t rapidly going extinct by our hand2 and wildfire
wasn’t laying waste to rainforests,3 vast geographical regions4 and entire nations,5
our time is still deeply imperiled. Representative democracies are waning
worldwide against the rise of populist, authoritarian nationalism.6 Multicultural
societies are facing crises of conscience in the face of mass migration from strife
and conflict.7 Partisan division and rampant misinformation have sown seeds of
enmity throughout our social fabric.8 The long peace9 threatens to unravel as the
drumbeats of brinkmanship10 and war begin to sound progressively louder.11 And
that’s just what’s on the news.
Yet the most serious reasons our horizon grants cause for alarm are rooted deeper,
into something more structural, and ultimately, something more fateful. To
explain why, we’ll take a brief step back and afford ourselves a high-level view of
where we stand at present.
Radiological dating tells us definitively that the first page of the human story
began at least 200,000 years ago.12 From the moment we made our first steps, it
took us nearly that entire length of time to reach a population of 1.5 billion people
– a milestone achieved around 1900.13 Yet barely a century later in 2010, we
reached seven billion people, and we’re well on track to hit ten billion by 2050.14
As it’s difficult to put those numbers in perspective, the following figures help
establish a more succinct context:
13
The Next Giant Leap
In the image below, each of the 2,000 rectangles equals one century. The blue
rectangles, in aggregate, represent the entire length of time it took humanity to reach
1.5 billion people. The lone black rectangle (last) represents the time it took
humanity to grow from 1.5 billion to 7 billion people.
14
The Next Giant Leap
This growth – and the rise of the civilizations that encompassed within – has been
powered exclusively by natural resources. As our population has rapidly
expanded, so too has our rate of resource consumption – far past the thresholds
that spawned Thomas Malthus’ Principle of Population and the 1970’s-era Limits to
Growth – famous publications forecasting the dangers of rapid population
expansion and its accompanying over-extraction of resources.15-16 Our population
as of 2020 has increased sevenfold from Malthus’ time, and is today twice the
population of the 1970’s. Consequently, we are now consuming resources so
rapidly and on such an immense scale that it’s destroying our planet’s ability to
support our existence. In a world of sensationalist media, such a claim might seem
exaggerative. In the world of facts, it’s an understatement.
1. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve cut down more than
half of the world’s forests.17
2. Plant and animal species are dying off so rapidly that global scientific
bodies conclude that humanity has caused Earth’s sixth great extinction
event,18 which has the potential to wipe out millions of years of
evolutionary history.19
3. Global fish stocks are overexploited by 80%,20 and ecologists predict they
may collapse entirely by as early as 2048.21
4. Ocean acidification is occurring at a rate not seen in the last 300 million
years and Earth is estimated to have lost half of its shallow corals in the
past three decades.22 If current trends continue, this figure is estimated to
rise to 90% by 2050.23
5. Between 1970 and 2014, Earth saw a 60% decline of its mammal, bird, fish,
reptile and amphibian species – almost exclusively due to human
activity.24 Since the dawn of our civilization, humanity has destroyed 83%
of all mammalian life on Earth.25 Of the mammalian life that remains, 96%
are either human or livestock.26 A scant 4% is all that’s left in the wild.27
15
The Next Giant Leap
“eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security and
quality of life worldwide.”28 Its noteworthy highlights include:29
• Plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, with 300-400 million
tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and industrial waste dumped
annually into global water systems.
• More than a third of Earth’s land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater
resources are now consumed by agriculture and livestock.
As humanity is inexorably tied to Earth’s ecology, these crises alone present major
risks to our long-term survival. But this problem is more complex than simple
extraction, pollution and waste. Take fresh water, for instance.
As 85% of humanity lives on the driest half of the planet,30 2.4 billion people today
lack access to clean water – and half of the world’s population lacks access to the
quality of water available to ancient Rome.31 The United Nations estimates that
by 2025 more than two billion people will live in conditions reflecting absolute
water scarcity and five billion people will live in conditions reflecting extreme
water stress,32 thresholds indicating life-risking lack of access to our most vital
resource.33 That’s respectively between 30% and 70% of the planet. The
international body further estimates that global fresh water demand between now
and 2050 will increase by 55%34 with demand exceeding supply by more than 30%
by 2040.35 Private investment forecasts are similar, as Goldman Sachs estimates
that global fresh water consumption is doubling every 20 years.36
16
The Next Giant Leap
To see what this looks like in practical terms, consider the Aral Sea, which was
once the 4th largest lake in the world. In 1960, the body of water had a surface area
of 26,300 square miles (68,000 km2) and a volume of 254 cubic miles (1,080 km3).37
For comparison, that is 4,000 square miles larger than Lake Michigan by surface
area and nearly two and a half times larger than Lake Erie by total volume.38 Yet
in a timespan of just 35 years, the Aral Sea was depleted to become what is now
known as the Aralkum Desert that comprises the borders of its eastern basin.39
Data from NASA satellites show that 21 of the world’s 37 aquifers have passed
their sustainability tipping points, meaning they will eventually run dry if current
circumstances continue.42 Aquifers supply 35% of global water use, and they are
among the last reliable sources of fresh water we have left.43 California is already
17
The Next Giant Leap
tapping aquifers for up to 60% of its water supply, and climate scientists expect
aquifers will be relied upon to even greater extents in the future.44
18
The Next Giant Leap
Should these models prove accurate, even fractionally, it risks the survival of
billions of people – saying nothing of supporting an ecosystem, nor the conflicts
spawned by such circumstances – and even wealthy nations will face major
complications to life as they know it.46
If that wasn’t bad enough, a substantial portion of our remaining fresh water
supplies are too toxic for human consumption. Industrial contamination, for
example, has rendered 60% of Chinese rivers unusable for drinking, bathing or
agriculture according to data published by the Chinese Ministry of Water
Resources.47 That figure rises to 70% when it comes to Chinese lakes and 80%
when it comes to wells that source groundwater – 90% when that groundwater is
sourced near cities.48
19
The Next Giant Leap
Another example is India. Upwards of 50% of the country faces extremely high
water stress according to a World Resources Institute study.49 The study found
that Indian drought conditions have become so severe that 330 million people –
greater than the population of the United States – are living in a dust bowl. The
situation has become so dire that the nation's coal-fired power plants are shutting
down as there’s not enough water to generate steam – with armed guards being
posted at dams to prevent water theft from desperate farmers.50
This is all before the impact of climate change, a factor that by itself adds massive
gravity to our current state of affairs. As extensive lobbying and campaign
“contributions” from the fossil fuel industry have turned the looming crisis into
a political issue,53 the basic principle that more carbon in the atmosphere leads to
a warmer climate has been undermined by disingenuous partisan dismissals.54
20
The Next Giant Leap
Image Source.57
21
The Next Giant Leap
Global Average Temperature Difference from 1850, projected until 2025 (°C)
Image source.58
Image source.59
22
The Next Giant Leap
Image source.60
Image source.61
23
The Next Giant Leap
Image source.62
Yet the ecological consequences of a warming climate have greater fallout to our
society. Their impact on trade, security, economy, public health and mass-
migration all have worldwide implications.63 The global food supply, however,
remains perhaps the most imperiled. As water (and oil)64 are vital to both
producing and transporting food, their scarcity alone would substantially disrupt
our ability to feed our growing world. Climate change makes that task inexorably
harder, and substantially more expensive.
24
The Next Giant Leap
Between 2006 and 2008, global average food prices rose 107% for soybeans, 136%
for wheat and 217% for rice.65 A 2010 study by the International Food Policy
Research Institute estimated that the price of corn, wheat and rice will rise by at
least 60% by 2050.66 A 2012 report by Oxfam – one of the largest humanitarian
charities in the world – estimates that by year 2030, food prices will rise 107% for
rice, 120% for wheat and 177% for corn compared to their baseline price in 2010.67
Oxfam’s report stated further that:
“While prices could double by 2030, the modeling suggests that one or more extreme
events in a single year could bring about price spikes of comparable magnitude to two
decades of projected long-run price increases.”68 (Emphasis mine)
We must also contend with the fact that precious little of our situation is aided by
the realpolitik of our time. The United States has been at war for the past eighteen
years as conflicts continue and self-perpetuate over much of the globe. Faith in
the promise of globalization and global institutions has retreated in many of the
western cultures that gave them life. With more than 65 million people displaced
around the world currently, millions of refugees are arriving in other nations as
unwelcome aliens.69 The storms brewing on our near horizon don’t present
mitigating effects to this dynamic, they’re potent accelerants. Humanity has never
before seen what happens when several hundred million people migrate in
desperation – and these circumstances stand to impact billions of lives. If current
trends continue, few doubts remain that our future may bear such witness.
As we saw in early 2020, COVID-19, a novel respiratory virus, brought the world
to its knees. Foreign and domestic supply chains were stretched so far past their
breaking points that it became effectively impossible for developed nations to
source even basic household items like bleach, hand sanitizer and toilet paper –
let alone medical necessities such as masks, ventilators and hospital intubation
25
The Next Giant Leap
equipment. Our social functions were pummeled to a standstill, and even first-
rate healthcare systems were overwhelmed to the point of paralysis.
This was the result of a single infection with a relatively low fatality rate. When we
consider what might happen if a billion people were to run out of food or water?
Or if climate change were to displace hundreds of millions of people? Or if Earth’s
ecology collapsed alongside its ability to support humanity’s existential
foundations? It’s hard to overstate the danger any one of these events would
present to our social order and our logistical capabilities to deftly respond to
crises. Yet the simple math of our situation shows that the likelihood of each these
results coming to pass – in unison – increases as long as current trends persist.
This reality exposes a fundamental truth of human nature and the actions of
nations: of the motives that cause us to take up arms against one another, few, if
any, are greater than resource scarcity and the economic damage caused as a
result.71 As individuals, people may fight over any number of reasons, be it
religion, nationalism, identity or pride – but nations aren’t driven by causes so
fickle.72 Nations are driven by the resources that sustain their existential basis –
the resources that power the vast unseen functions which enable a modern,
interconnected society. And should they not manifest in either perception or
reality, the uncompromising nature of need beats the drums of war to unleash the
horror that follows. Most every conflict, occupation or atrocity on a large scale
can be attributed to this fact.73 The entirety of human history, even if varnished
through a rose-colored sheen, provides a bitter testimony.
Some macabre trivia: a single Ohio-class United States Navy submarine is capable
of raining thermonuclear warheads on as many as 288 targets within a range of
7,000 miles – each with 2,500% greater destructive power than the atomic bomb
dropped on Nagasaki.76 The U.S. Navy has fourteen of such submarines. The
Russians, Chinese, French, British, Indians and Israelis77 each have their own, and
that’s on top of the land-based missiles and aircraft that can be used to deliver
thousands of nuclear munitions to any corner of the globe within an hour or less.78
26
The Next Giant Leap
There are fewer than 4,500 cities on the planet with more than 150,000 people.79
Humanity possesses an equivalent of four nukes for each.80
Yet the quintessential point of the fable is that the wolf does one day arrive, to
either be defeated or devoured by. That day is now.
The multitude of problems facing our future place the foundations of our
civilization in existential peril. The continued survival of not only our way of life,
but our very species and the planet we call home is incumbent on their solution.
Our hands, in our time, are tasked with either developing that solution, or failing
to. Failure in this context is not quantified by a loss of money, power, prestige or
reputation. It’s quantified by the immolation of our civilization as we know it.
The extinction of Earth’s natural beauty. And, ultimately, the ashes of what we
love and hold dear. That is the stone-cold reality of our present state of affairs.
But The Next Giant Leap wasn’t written to bow to that reality. It was written to
change it. And it starts with a story of technology.
Ever since we invented machines that could perform at greater levels of speed
and precision than human hands, we’ve rapidly increased our capabilities to
build advanced systems: jet aircraft, smartphones, supercomputers, satellites and
spaceships. And while these capabilities have caused problems, they can derive
even greater solutions.
27
The Next Giant Leap
Technology made all of this possible. Yet we’ve now reached the point where
sophisticated systems – systems which, thirty years ago, took millions of dollars
and months to build – can be inexpensively manufactured on automated
assembly lines in hours. This capability has been extended to cutting-edge
aircraft, advanced electronics, even large-scale infrastructure. But it can now also
be extended to energy-generating systems of all forms – small modular power
plants, systems for energy transfer, large-scale storage and energy management,
mass-produced wind turbines and solar panels – enabling us to generate energy
on far higher scales than was ever before possible.
But what if we took things a step further? What if instead of just mass-producing
energy technologies, we also built them to work together by design? In the era of
the smartphone or smart car, why not have a smart power plant or smart power
grid? And, having done that, what happens if we apply all of the technological
advancements we’ve recently made within and outside of energy generation, and
combine them into one intelligent system for energy and resource production that
can be easily scaled and deployed worldwide?
We don’t yet have a system today that can answer these questions. So, we’re going
to take the opportunity to build one that can – right here, in this book.
The Next Giant Leap outlines blueprints for a system to solve resource scarcity and
climate change. This system is called “Universal Energy” and it is an open-source
framework of the best energy technologies we have available, designed to work
together in a way that makes them greater than the sum of their parts in terms of
output, efficiency and flexibility. As a framework, Universal Energy is designed
to be deployed rapidly on a large scale to turn the tide against the ecological,
climate and resource problems of our time. Its goal is to shift the foundations of
how we generate energy to in turn shift the foundations for how we acquire and
distribute resources – and, in the process, permanently erase the concepts of
scarcity and need.
28
The Next Giant Leap
what made 0’s and 1’s into the interconnected world we live in today. Software
can be developed and applied for the ever-better management of data, goods,
currency, ecosystems and even people. It can also do the same for energy and
resources in a new paradigm of global abundance.
And, this framework can be deployed anywhere in the world to functionally end
resource scarcity – and do so with finality.
If we can unchain ourselves from the eternal problem of resource scarcity and the
untold human potential it consumes, it frees up the immense resources devoted
to extinguishing its fires within a scarcity-dominated world. We can then invest
those resources in social advancement and ecological healing, powering a
perpetually ascendant course. This wouldn’t cost us more, and would ultimately
cost us less – not just in terms of money, but also in terms of focus.
With the technologies behind Universal Energy and the framework they power,
we can change the world.
29
The Next Giant Leap
30
The Next Giant Leap
Universal Energy
FRAMEWORK
31
The Next Giant Leap
32
The Next Giant Leap
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a
new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
- R. Buckminster Fuller
33
The Next Giant Leap
34
The Next Giant Leap
Resources have been the key to nearly every social and technological
advancement we have ever achieved, and resource scarcity has conversely been
the cause of major problems both in the past and in our time today. Throughout
history, the societies and nations of mankind have all attempted to mitigate
scarcity through varied constructs: laws and social policies; ideologies and
political movements; technological innovations; the rewriting of borders; and,
ultimately, war. Yet these approaches have almost universally sought to avoid
resource scarcity by addressing its varied symptoms – rarely, if ever, have they
dealt with the core problem itself.
A true solution doesn’t cure the symptoms. It cures the disease. In the case of
resource scarcity, our cure comes from technology – and more importantly, how
we can use it.
For example:
• The years following WWII gave rise to the threat of the first global
resource crisis: food scarcity. Humanity was rapidly expanding in
population and feeding the planet was becoming progressively more
difficult. This crisis was detailed in The Limits to Growth,81 a 1971 paper that
35
The Next Giant Leap
In each of these examples, a once-scarce resource was made both abundant and
inexpensive as a function of technology, for technology has the unique ability to
expand the scale of resource production while also lowering costs. But in the past,
technology only really improved our ability to extract resources that were
naturally present – and, over time, extraction has proven to be unsustainable as
our natural resource supplies eventually dwindle. But what if we shifted gears to
develop systems that could instead synthesize resources at scale?
36
The Next Giant Leap
For the first time in history, that’s a capability we now possess today.
To put this in perspective, most nuclear power plants in the United States were
built between 1970 and 1990.86 That means a good deal of them were designed
and built without the aid of a calculator.87 The same is true with other types of power
plants and larger-scale social infrastructure. Yet today, we have the capability to
design a power plant on a computer and build it on an assembly line – much as
we build a toaster.
To be sure, we can build many things with these increased capabilities. But the
starting point is to build a system that can sustainably produce resources. And
not just any resources, but the five most critical:
Above all else, these are the most important resources for our civilization to
operate. Without water, nothing grows and nothing lives. Without food, we
starve. Electricity is the currency of capability and information, and is the glue
that holds our modern social framework intact. Fuel provides high-density
energy in standalone contexts where electricity is not present, and building
materials enable us to advance, repair and extend the infrastructure that enables
our civilization to flourish.
37
The Next Giant Leap
These are the resources that are most essential to powering our advanced
economies, and these are the resources most likely to spark conflict when they
become scarce.88
38
The Next Giant Leap
the waste energy of one technology to power something else. For example:
diverting the waste heat energy from a coastal power plant to power a nearby
facility that desalinates seawater into fresh water. Desalination is presently a
costly and energy-intensive process,92 yet when it’s powered primarily by waste
energy, energy requirements and costs drop drastically.
The cost of this energy is intended to be no more than two cents per
kilowatt-hour, down from today’s 10.53-cent average.94 Reaching this
target would provide enough energy at a low enough cost to allow large-
scale synthetic production of civilization’s five most critical resources. (For
those inclined, a detailed pricing model is included in this writing’s
Appendix on page 315).
39
The Next Giant Leap
40
The Next Giant Leap
canopies – gives us a unique location for installation that critically eliminates the
expense of buying additional land. Not only does this allow us to use the high costs
of constructing public infrastructure to offset the expenses of renewable energy –
it helps build a smarter and more resilient electric grid.
These reactors are far cleaner, far safer and more resistant to weaponization than
uranium reactors used today. Thorium is also abundant – about as common as
lead – which makes it thousands of times more sustainable than fuel-grade
uranium. The waste footprint of LFTRs is minimal and short-term, rendered safe
in decades as opposed to millennia. And because they can be built to small size
and don’t operate under pressure, they can cost a fraction of what other
approaches to atomic energy run. Just as importantly, they present a carbon-
neutral energy source to manufacture and recycle renewables (and supplemental
resources) on a large scale.
Water and Hydrogen – Our ability to extract fresh water and hydrogen fuel from
seawater is well-known to science and industry.95 The problem is that the process
has thus-far been energy-intensive and thus expensive. Using the near-unlimited
supply of inexpensive heat and electricity from thorium changes that, enabling us
to desalinate billions of gallons of seawater at minimal cost. Of this water,
Universal Energy devotes a portion to producing hydrogen fuel, with the
remainder being transported nationwide through another central component of
Universal Energy: The National Aqueduct.
41
The Next Giant Leap
With this abundant supply of energy and water at our fingertips, we solve the
problems of resource scarcity. We can grow food indefinitely in indoor farming
networks near urban centers.96 These indoor farms can be extended further to
grow the organic substances needed to create sophisticated synthetic materials,
materials that can revolutionize how things are built and recycled.97 In aggregate,
Universal Energy gives us nigh unlimited supplies of energy, water, food,
electricity, fuel and building materials – enabling us thereafter to advance our
manufacturing capabilities and build our civilization to ever-greater heights in a
world spared of scarcity and need.
As current technologies evolve and new ones emerge, the Universal Energy
framework will adapt to include them. The goal is to generate enough clean
energy at a low enough cost that we can inexpensively synthesize resources to
effectively unlimited scales at minimal environmental impact. Just as players
42
The Next Giant Leap
change roles in a football game, technologies will do the same within Universal
Energy. As an evolving framework, Universal Energy will update to reflect the
greatest available potential for clean energy generation.
The mindset behind Universal Energy and all it seeks to achieve is to rewrite the
rules of our existence by systematically dismantling the challenges that have held
us back since the dawn of time. If successful, we can position ourselves for a
future where humanity – us, our children, and generations hence – not only
survives on this planet, but permanently thrives. Where we can reach goals that
were never before achievable and bypass the limitations of resources as we once
knew them. The technical capability is here today. Universal Energy is how we
can make it real.
43
The Next Giant Leap
44
The Next Giant Leap
The word “energy” incidentally equates with the Greek word for “challenge.” I think
there is much to learn in thinking of our federal energy problem in that light. Further, it
is important for us to think of energy in terms of a gift of life.
- Thomas Carr
45
The Next Giant Leap
46
The Next Giant Leap
The Universal Energy framework starts with renewable energy. Not just because
it’s versatile and easily accessible, nor because it boasts a historically
unprecedented capability to generate energy from a truly unlimited source.
Rather, Universal Energy leverages renewables – specifically solar, wind and
artificial hydroelectric – because of their ability to both integrate within large-
scale infrastructure and power resource production as a municipal function.
The first is the integration of solar and wind power directly within urban
infrastructure to remove the obstacles and cost limitations they face today. This is
a critically important distinction to our current approach towards these
technologies, which only comprise 10% of energy generation nationwide.98 While
the usual suspects99 in fossil energy lobbies certainly play a role in this,100 the
justified condemnation of their undue influence often glosses over the significant
logistical and economic challenges to implementing renewables over a large scale.
As we’ll see shortly, an integrational approach inherently avoids those challenges.
The second area of focus is The National Aqueduct, a vital function of Universal
Energy intended to transport desalinated water anywhere in the country by
piggybacking on the pre-cleared and largely publicly owned land of our interstate
highway system and high-tension power line networks. Further, the National
Aqueduct acts as both a power plant and a battery by deploying solar, wind,
hydroelectric and thermoelectric functions as a single system. The National
Aqueduct is detailed within Chapters Seven and Eight, but it’s useful to keep it
in mind as it’s referenced several times before then.
47
The Next Giant Leap
Location and transmission. Electricity, like sound, weakens over distance due to
resistance in transmission mediums – in our case, power lines.101 As a general rule,
the farther electricity must travel, the harder it becomes to transmit. For example:
there is enough open space in the American southwest for solar panels to power
the entire planet.102 Yet transmitting electricity from the southwest to locations
thousands of miles away is both difficult and expensive. It’s possible to generate
the energy, but we can’t efficiently get it from point A to point B once we start
spanning large distances. Even if more efficient power lines emerged, they would
still cost millions of dollars to build per-mile.103 This means renewables are best
deployed in locations close to where their generated energy is consumed.
Deployment expense and physical space. Solar and wind power require
relatively large areas of land to be useful. Given that they are best deployed in
locations close to energy consumption, this presents a secondary problem: land
costs generally increase with population density. If land needs to be purchased
for installation, the cost effectiveness of renewables proportionally reduces the
closer they get to population centers.
48
The Next Giant Leap
These obstacles have slowed down the adoption of renewable power nationwide,
and while advances in research and development have mitigated their impact to
various degrees, they still remain substantial. Universal Energy seeks to solve this
problem by targeting large-scale infrastructure for renewable deployment –
especially public infrastructure.
Here’s why:
No need to buy land. Municipalities can install solar and wind on publicly owned
property by their own volition. They don’t need to submit bids or seek permission
to buy expensive private land – cities can simply use city funds to deploy
renewables on city-owned property to generate municipally provided electricity
as they deem fit.
Think of the streets in your nearest city. The sides, windows and rooftops of every
public or government building, every highway overpass and bridge, and every
stadium built in part or full with public money; even privately-owned buildings.
Imagine all of this infrastructure integrated with solar panels from the moment
49
The Next Giant Leap
they were constructed – and all without spending so much as a nickel to buy extra
land for their deployment. This image shows only one section of one area of one city.
Now imagine every city in America taking this approach. Applying this mindset
across every municipality in the country gives us billions of square feet of surface
space to deploy renewables that’s both close to consumption and doesn’t require
us to buy expensive land.
50
The Next Giant Leap
As these surfaces both retain the aesthetics of traditional roofing tiles while
boasting the functionality of solar panels, these companies identified a modular
standard to deploy solar panels and manufactured their products to that standard.
Yet they still require the personal investment of individual homeowners in order
to adopt them on a large scale. By integrating renewables within municipal
infrastructure, large-scale adoption can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen.
This incentivizes manufacturers to invest in renewable technologies that can be
built to a standard for wide and consistent deployment nationwide.
Aside from the National Aqueduct, Universal Energy looks to three general types
of large-scale infrastructure to deploy renewables. They include standing
structures, road medians, and road canopies, which we’ll review in depth after
taking a quick aside to make mention of some necessary assumptions.
51
The Next Giant Leap
A Quick Note:
The Next Giant Leap uses some terms surrounding energy that you might be a little
unfamiliar with. We’ll take a minute to explain these terms (and their use in some
basic arithmetic) more clearly to make it easier to grasp how Universal Energy
works.
Energy vs. Power: Power quantifies the potential amount of energy that could be
exerted in a given moment. Energy is the aggregate total of power exerted over time.
Both power and energy are denoted in “watts,” with power denoted in-moment
and energy over time. Watts is a metric unit of measure (1,000 watts = 1 kilowatt =
0.001 megawatt).
For example: if you turned on a 60-watt light bulb for ten seconds, that light bulb
would have had 60 watts of power flowing through it. Yet it consumed 600 watt-
seconds of energy (60 watts x 10 seconds). If it was on for an hour, it would have
consumed 60 watt-hours (3,600 watt-seconds). If it was on for one year (8,760
hours) it would have consumed a total of 525,600 watt-hours of energy. That’s
equivalent to 525.6 kilowatt-hours. At any given moment, though, it only had 60
watts of power flowing through.
Solar Power: In determining the effectiveness of solar power, we’re going to need
to establish some baselines so we’re measuring consistently. Solar panels vary in
size, sophistication and effectiveness, and there are several factors at play that
determine both.
52
The Next Giant Leap
Solar panel output varies by sophistication, size, region and efficiency. So, we’ll
have to establish some assumptions based on the myriad solar options available.
The SunPower E20 solar panel is a solid quality solar panel available on the
market today. With a nominal power output of 327 watts, it is 61.4 inches wide
and 41.2 inches tall, coming to a surface area of about 17.5 square feet.108 That
translates to roughly 18.7 watts of power per square foot. Now let’s convert that
to energy. If we circle back to the energy vs. power section on the prior page, 18.7
watts of power exerted over an hour is measured as 18.7 watt-hours. Assuming
five peak sun hours in a day, that totals 93.5-watt hours generated per day.
Extrapolated over a calendar year, that totals 34,127.5 watt-hours.
Denoted in kilowatt-hours (the standard most energy is measured in), that comes
to 34.12 kilowatt-hours of energy generated per square foot, per year. To play it
safe, however, we’ll cut that figure by 10%, and estimate that one square foot of
solar panel surface can reliably generate 30 kilowatt-hours per year. As there are
27.88 million square feet in one square mile, we will conclude that one square mile
of solar panels would reliably generate 836.5 million kilowatt-hours in a year.
Assumption Totals:
One square mile of solar generates: 836.5 million kilowatt-hours per year.
With these assumptions explained and these figures established, we’ll circle back
to the revolutionary benefits of integrated renewables and how they can help
build a clean energy future.
53
The Next Giant Leap
Standing Structures
Universal Energy’s first target for large-scale renewable deployment are standing
structures with a primary emphasis on solar power. As we’ve invented solar
panels that are both clear and visually unobtrusive, virtually any type of
construction can be harnessed to generate clean energy from the sun.
This approach is ideal when it comes to location for solar deployment: standing
structures are directly integrated within (and thus close to) population centers,
and, as such, don’t require the purchase of additional land that might otherwise
cost billions of dollars in aggregate. Further, in many cases, integrating solar can
be accomplished as a seamless upgrade of the building’s existing features.
As a base concept, this idea isn’t new. Rooftops have been outfitted with solar
panels since they were invented, and their use has increased as the costs of
renewable energy have dropped over time. But recent advances in manufacturing
and material science empower us to more deeply integrate solar into architectural
designs. Solar glass now allows buildings to replace exterior windows with
transparent solar panels. Solar-thermal HVAC uses excess solar energy to heat
water and the building itself, generating electricity while at the same time
slashing energy costs. Rooftop solar panels have never been cheaper, and for
residential applications, solar shingles give homeowners the ability to use solar
power with zero aesthetic sacrifice. Next-generation energy storage technologies
tie all of the above together in a reliable, closed-loop system – an important feature
that we’ll review later in this writing.
54
The Next Giant Leap
A large building such as the skyscraper on the previous page could likely generate
more energy than it could reliably consume in a given day. What to do with this
extra energy? It could be held locally in municipal storage (including the National
Aqueduct), sold back to a local or municipal electric utility, or it could be diverted
directly into its heating and cooling system.
55
The Next Giant Leap
The benefits of upgrading existing buildings with solar windows and rooftop
arrays of solar power will be limited primarily by the construction of the
buildings themselves. To truly extend the capabilities of renewables on standing
structures, integration could be considered by design at the architectural stage.
The following image shows the circular headquarters for PAF, a gambling
management company owned and operated by the Finnish government. The
building is wrapped completely in solar panels.
Another example is the Solar Valley Micro-E hotel in Northwest China, designed
from the ground-up to maximize solar utility.
56
The Next Giant Leap
The Sanyo/Panasonic Solar Ark is a dual power plant and science museum
dedicated to solar energy. Made from factory-rejected solar panels, it generates
500,000 kilowatt-hours of energy per year.115
These examples of solar buildings are prototypes, and, with the exception of the
PAF headquarters in Finland, are initiatives undertaken by private companies.
But these buildings act as solid proofs-of-concept, giving us ideas with which we
can extend the integration of renewables within new structures.
Unlike passive solar design – an architectural trend from the 1970’s that attempted
to design structures that would naturally take advantage of solar energy without
the aid of mechanical equipment116 – the sophistication of today’s technology and
available commercial products in the renewable sector make “active solar
designs” more straightforward. Technology can provide solar shingles, solar
windows and solar walls at comparable or lower costs than fossilized energy
sources.117 Such technologies can further integrate through solar-enabled heating
and air conditioning systems within a building. Managing a system could be
accomplished through something as simple as a smartphone app.
Every building that adopts an active solar system avoids unnecessary energy
expenses and further presents less demand on the local electrical grid. Each
57
The Next Giant Leap
building further helps create a cascading effect of increasing the amount of energy
generated while decreasing total energy consumption.
This cascading effect becomes important when other infrastructure is selected for
potential solar energy deployment. Take bridges for example.
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa, for example, is 4.14 miles long (roughly
21,900 feet).119 If we were to assume an average of only 40’ of deployment surface
on each side of the 430-foot tall structure, the Skyway bridge would feature 1.75
million square feet of surface area that could be mounted with clear, aesthetically
unobtrusive solar panels. When we shortly consider the implications of solar road
canopies, the 94’ wide driving surface would add another 2.05 million square feet
of surface area to a total of 3.81 million.
Another promising example of usable infrastructure is the parking lot. Our nation
is littered with parking lots that are flat and open:
58
The Next Giant Leap
As they’re dark in color, they absorb lots of heat, and anyone who drives in
summer knows full well that they turn cars to ovens – presenting serious safety
risks to children or pets left inside. This makes parking lots uniquely well-suited
for solar panels, a concept that’s been increasingly adopted as solar panel prices
have dropped.
Solar parking lots solve several problems at once. They generate electricity that
can be used to power the building that owns the lot; charge the electric cars of
customers or employees; or sell energy back to a local or municipal electric grid.
Solar canopies further provide shade that keeps cars cool. Across an urban
landscape, solar parking lots could generate a massive amount of electricity that
could further increase our total generating capacity (and thus supply) while
reducing demand from external energy sources.
59
The Next Giant Leap
Road Medians
As one of the greatest publics works projects of the 20th century, highways
present uniquely attractive locations to install renewable energy. They’re
completely cleared of obstructions, and as they’re generally flat and straight, they
get extensive sun and wind exposure. They’re often close to cities, almost always
municipally owned, and easily accessible.
While roads themselves can also be extended to integrate solar power via
overhead canopies, highways often feature medians – unpaved barriers between
lanes of traffic (especially on city outskirts) – which are perfect locations to deploy
renewable energy. Like the highway itself, medians are usually municipally
owned as well. Yet they serve no functional purpose apart from separating
directional traffic. Additionally, they require constant maintenance (mowing,
landscaping, etc.), which comes with significant additional costs. So, why not
repurpose them for solar panels and wind turbines, solving two problems at
once? Japan, South Korea, China and The Netherlands have done exactly that:
In the case of South Korea, their solar road median also doubles as a covered bike
path for non-motorized commuters (image on top and on bottom-right).
60
The Next Giant Leap
Wind turbines can also be integrated with solar panels at regular intervals. They
cast minimal shadow, present no risk to motorists, and can complement electricity
generation twenty-four hours a day. The Enlil Turbine,122 for example, is designed
to be installed on highway medians to serve this exact purpose.
61
The Next Giant Leap
These side benefits, however, aren’t the central focus. A one mile-stretch of solar
arrays (at ten feet wide) would comprise 52,800 square feet of surface, which at
30 kilowatt-hours generated per square foot annually would arrive at a combined
total of 1.58 million kilowatt-hours – enough to power 150 homes. Any energy
generated by wind turbines would be supplementary. There are approximately
4 million miles of public roads in the United States.123 Yet while not all road
surfaces boat medians (or proximity to power consuming locations), it does
present attractive opportunities to install overhead solar canopies to generate
energy – especially within cities.
62
The Next Giant Leap
At concept, a solar road canopy is simply a rectangular canopy over a road surface
that’s built on pylons. As roads are generally flat, straight and cleared at the sides
from overhead obstructions, they’re another easy way to deploy millions of solar
panels. The four million miles of American road surfaces – some 8.3 million lane-
miles124 – are among the most comprehensive in the world; they connect every
city in the nation together and cover thousands of square miles – some 18,860 if
we were to assume each lane of road had the national average width of 12 feet.125
Extrapolated into square feet, that’s a cool 528.88 billion. At 30 kilowatt-hours per
square foot, per year, even one-tenth of that area would output 1.58 trillion
kilowatt-hours – roughly half our national energy consumption. Further, roads
also remain municipally owned, which like highway medians and public
infrastructure allows for large-scale deployment while avoiding the need to
purchase expensive land. Considering the map below, how many other public
locations do we have available – at such size or interconnectivity – to deploy a
nationwide network of anything to a single standard? Roads are the zenith for
integrating renewables within large-scale infrastructure.
However, power is not the only benefit presented by solar road canopies. Heat
management is another major aspect – especially within cities. As summer
months continually increase in temperature through the encroaching impact of
climate change,126 cities are finding it ever-more challenging to deal with
conditions hot enough to melt asphalt.127 Placing solar canopies over roads would
perform the same effect as placing solar canopies over parking lots – providing
shade, keeping the surface below cool and reflecting heat upward instead of
having it absorbed into the ground.
63
The Next Giant Leap
While solar road canopies would generate immense energy over distance, further
benefits could include integration with road technology aids. Heating elements
to keep panels clear of snow, municipal WiFi networks, wireless charging for
electric vehicles, directional GPS guidance and auxiliary wireless guidance for
autonomous vehicles are all examples in this respect.
As all canopies would require in abstract are metal pylons, a cross-lattice to install
panels, wiring and plumbing, the overall deployment expenses and logistical
challenges are significantly limited – all the more since they would be installed
on municipal property and thus spared of land costs.
Applying solar and wind power to standing structures, highway medians, and
road canopies integrates renewable energy into municipal infrastructure, creating
a self-reinforcing system that’s easy to scale and maintain over time. The next
question is storage: how can we keep the energy generated by renewables for later
use? Solar doesn’t work at night and works less efficiently during overcast days.
Wind power only works when the ambient environment is windy. Renewables,
therefore, will only be as effective as their ability to pair with storage mediums.
This has proven significantly challenging – and expensive – for large-scale
renewable deployment in the past, and has presented risks to energy availability
at times of unexpected demand.130
The National Aqueduct (which we’ll go over in Chapter Seven) is the primary
method Universal Energy employs to solve this problem within the framework.
64
The Next Giant Leap
But there are several other promising energy storage mediums that can work on
a smaller scale when needed – especially in remote locations.
One option comes from Tesla. Their flagship battery products: the Tesla
Powerwall (home use) and Powerpack (commercial applications), provides
piecemeal solar storage solutions at relatively modest costs.
65
The Next Giant Leap
-------------------
66
The Next Giant Leap
But even in their infancy, these renewable energy sources, when integrated into
large-scale infrastructure and combined with next-generation commercial energy
storage, complete a circle. Deploying renewables in cities transforms their
capabilities by maximizing their scale while minimizing costs. Once complete,
this circle sets the stage for an evolution in city design that dramatically expands
the potential of the contemporary and future metropolis. Cities, now net energy
consumers, can one day become net energy producers with increased potential to
improve quality of life for their inhabitants. This change is the key to the cities of
tomorrow, built by our hand today.
67
The Next Giant Leap
68
The Next Giant Leap
A city is not gauged by its length and width, but by the broadness of its vision and the
height of its dreams.
- Herb Caen
69
The Next Giant Leap
70
The Next Giant Leap
To see how, consider the following six images of civil infrastructure. Imagine, as
we did last chapter, that they were completely integrated with renewables. Every
window and roof of every building. Every road and off-ramp. Every bridge.
Every highway median. Everything.
71
The Next Giant Leap
To see how this possible, let’s run some numbers. Miami-Dade County in South
Florida spans an area of 2,431 square miles, 1,898 of which is land.137 It assessed a
net energy consumption of 132.13 billion kilowatt-hours in 2018.138 We saw earlier
how one square mile of solar panel surface can reliably generate 836.4 million
kilowatt-hours per year. That means Miami-Dade County would only have to
integrate renewables with 159 square miles of its infrastructure – less than 8% –
to become resource independent. At 10%, the county generates more power than
it consumes. At 16%, it’s a power plant. One might be forgiven for wondering
what possibilities could arise should that integration reach 30%, 60%, 90% - all the
more so as renewable technologies advance over time.
We see how this approach can remove the energy cities consume on external
power networks and transforms cities from net energy consumers to net energy
producers as a standard function of municipal operation. But from there, several
key side benefits can help cities take full advantage of their next-generation
infrastructure. Of them, standouts include smart grids, intermittency avoidance
and centralized resource production.
Smart Grids
72
The Next Giant Leap
where cities can reliably generate and store more energy than they consume, they
can function as power-generating entities, like nodes on a network.
But it’s important to note that this power generation doesn’t necessarily have to
plug into existing grids. Instead, they can also create their own separate electric
grids that operate in parallel. Multiple grids could serve the same area, which
makes them highly reliable and capable of operating intelligently to respond
deftly to spikes in energy demand. To explain what I mean by that, it’s useful to
see how our electric grid works today and why it’s not up to par to meet the
challenges it will likely face in the future.
Whenever a power line goes down (storms, transformer overload, accidents), any
location in the service area will go dark and will remain so until new power lines
are constructed or a workaround is built. (See: Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria).
Addressing these problems with current methods will be both challenging and
expensive, akin to making a computer built in the 1980s compete with today’s
latest models. By some estimates, it will cost upwards of $1 trillion to improve
U.S. electric grids to simply meet demand by 2025.146 Municipal deployment of
renewables completely changes that. A stretch of renewable-integrated highway
median or solar road canopy does not need power lines – they are the power line.
73
The Next Giant Leap
They are an electric grid. A business district with buildings covered in solar
windows serves the same purpose.
Within a city, integrated renewables provide their own electric networks that
operate on top of present infrastructure. Connected redundantly to both each
other and existing electric grids, they can route and reroute energy as necessary.
Paired alongside the National Aqueduct or other storage mediums, they can
function as independent nodes to deliver power where it is needed most.
This provides some important side benefits. For starters, it increases the security
of our electric grid multifold. To see how, take a look at the image on the following
page that represents today’s electric grid at the regional scale. In this setup, if a
central power line or substation were to be disabled, the entire section of the grid
they serve would go dark. Our electric grid is then vulnerable to environmental
disasters, terrorist attacks or freak accidents.
74
The Next Giant Leap
75
The Next Giant Leap
Reducing Intermittency
This re-imagining of cities has such potential to improve how we generate energy
and acquire resources that it’s easy to focus on the technical benefits of such
capabilities – power, infrastructure, resources, utility management. Yet the social
benefits hold equal potential. When every aspect of a city is overhauled in such
circumstances, each new upgrade acts as a basis for further improvement that can
be reinvested to increase a collective quality of life. It helps reinforce optimism of
what’s actually possible when we stop and realize that investing in our future
best interests is actually in our future best interests, and removes psychological
76
The Next Giant Leap
barriers to initiatives seeking to continue this trend over the long term. We
believe, fundamentally, in what we can build when we actually build it.
The benefits of this investment also does not limit itself to the commercial,
tourism, and cultural hubs that define our national image. There is no shortage of
places outside of America’s elite coasts that could use a facelift. Centering
municipalities within a national energy framework and investing in next-
generation infrastructure is perhaps the fastest way to see that result delivered.
Reaching that end for all American cities is a central goal of Universal Energy, one
we’ll focus on specifically within Chapter Twelve.
77
The Next Giant Leap
78
The Next Giant Leap
In the years since man unlocked the power stored within the atom, the world has made
progress, halting, but effective, toward bringing that power under human control. The
challenge may be our salvation. As we begin to master the destructive potentialities of
modern science, we move toward a new era in which science can fulfill its creative
promise and help bring into existence the happiest society the world has ever known.
- John F. Kennedy
79
The Next Giant Leap
80
The Next Giant Leap
“Base load” refers to the minimum amount of power that needs to be generated
for a given region over time.147 Today, this is met through larger “base load”
power stations that are supplemented by smaller plants that engage when
demand spikes. As base load stations are designed to be constantly operational
and generate a lot of electricity, they are more expensive to construct and
maintain, which encourages the use of cheaper fuels to power them.
Universal Energy seeks to solve these problems by replacing our base load
infrastructure with next-generation technology that’s designed to work alongside
other power systems intelligently, employing the same concepts of
standardization and modularity that’s applied to integrated renewables. The
technology it looks to for this role is a clean, safe and highly efficient form of
81
The Next Giant Leap
atomic energy that comes from the element thorium – not enriched uranium – to
provide an immense source of base load power for our national energy grids.
In saying this, it’s important to mention that nuclear power can be a polarizing
subject – and for good reason. Atomic energy can be dangerous. It can make
weapons of mass destruction, cause regionally-devastating meltdowns and
produce toxic waste that lasts for millennia. Risks aside, certain types of nuclear
power can also be incredibly expensive, leading many to doubt its long-term
economic viability. For these reasons, nuclear has become politically controversial
in much of the world, especially within the United States.
Yet while many of these concerns are conceptually valid, nearly every single one
centers on the consequences of nuclear reactors that run on a combination of
enriched uranium and pressurized water. And the reason most reactors have worked
this way in the past is because atomic energy as we know it was born from
initiatives designed to produce both nuclear weapons and civilian power as
directed from national leadership during the Cold War.152 Consequently, there are
few ways to decouple “traditional” nuclear reactors from nuclear weapons
development. Any attempt to do so with certainty quickly reaches into the billions
of dollars, to say nothing of the ecological risks and their accompanying expenses.
But thorium is not “traditional” nuclear. Reactors fueled by thorium don’t use
water and aren’t pressurized – the main issue behind reactor “meltdowns.”
Thorium reactors don’t use solid fuel, either – the entire reactor core is liquid. It’s
physically impossible for one to “melt down” like their pressurized-water
counterparts and they can’t wreak serious environmental havoc if sabotaged.
Thorium reactors can consume both nuclear waste and weapons-grade nuclear
material as fuel, but at the same time are difficult to use to build nuclear weapons.
Their waste has a minimal environmental footprint as well, and that waste becomes
safe over decades as opposed to millennia.153
Thorium reactors further fit the requirements of Universal Energy. They operate
at high temperature and offer plenty of excess energy for supplemental resource
production. They can be built to a single standard, small in size and modular in
function that can be mass produced and deployed anywhere in the world. The
designs being proposed already include the cogenerative features that Universal
Energy seeks for a dynamic energy framework. As we’ll see later in this chapter,
the technology has been proven to work impressively and has further seen
82
The Next Giant Leap
financial investments well into the billions from seven countries (as of this
writing) – including the United States.154
But in advocating their benefits, it’s important to also note that thorium reactors
have their criticisms. Some come from people simply opposed to nuclear power
as a concept, favoring exclusive use of renewables. Others come from nuclear
engineers, cautioning against discarding traditional reactor designs that, while
riskier, have seen the lion’s share of research and development with regards to
atomic energy. Others still come from people who doubt the viability of a science
that – to be fair – has a contingent of enthusiastic backers who at times oversell
thorium’s benefits without recognizing the challenges, however solvable, to
deploying the technology on a large scale.
These criticisms are taken seriously by this writing and will be addressed directly
in this chapter, situated fairly and factually within the context of the resource,
climate and energy challenges humanity will be facing in the future. This
discussion will also draw a noteworthy distinction between renewables and
thorium, and directly address why we even need both in the first place.
Further, even if renewables could generate enough energy to solve these problems,
the carbon emissions behind their base material extraction, manufacture,
transport and installation at sufficient scale would undermine the endeavor from
the start. Solar and wind power, as we’ll review later in this chapter, requires lots
of raw materials to construct – between 10,000-17,000 metric tons to generate a
single terawatt.156 That says nothing of transmission or storage – nor the energy
needed to source, process and integrate materials for those functions. It also says
nothing of the considerable difficulties presented by their end-state disposal.
83
The Next Giant Leap
That’s not a problem if the energy used in every step the renewable
manufacturing chain is carbon-neutral, but only clean nuclear is capable of
generating that level of carbon-free energy as a modular standard. Further, only
clean nuclear is capable of generating enough carbon-free energy to power
auxiliary functions of synthetic resource production. To see why this is the case,
let’s compare nuclear and solar at scale:
One of the largest solar power stations in the world is the Topaz Solar Farm in
southern California. At a cost of $2.5 billion and spanning 7.3 square miles, the
Topaz Solar Farm deploys nine million solar modules to generate an aggregate of
1,270 gigawatt-hours annually.157 That’s certainly impressive. But it’s dwarfed
when compared to the generating capacity of base load nuclear.
The Limerick nuclear power plant in southeast Pennsylvania, for comparison, has
a generating capacity of 2,270 megawatts and annually outputs 19,000 gigawatt-
hours.158 That plant is barely half the size of the Palo Verde nuclear plant in
Arizona, which has a generating capacity of 3,942 megawatts and annually
outputs 32,840 gigawatt-hours of energy.159
Even as one of the largest solar power stations in existence – located in one of the
most solar-effective areas on the planet – the Topaz Solar Farm generates less than
5% of the output of a large base load nuclear power station.
84
The Next Giant Leap
price of electricity to plummet. Most critically, thorium is capable of this while also
generating enough residual heat energy to power inexpensive resource production.
That’s the essential capability that only clean nuclear can meet on the scale we
need to solve resource scarcity and climate change. We’ll devote the rest of this
chapter to see how thorium reactors can serve as a vital component of Universal
Energy, bridging the divide between nuclear and renewables while expanding
our energy production capabilities and transforming our resource supply chain.
85
The Next Giant Leap
A Quick Note:
While The Next Giant Leap takes care to explain all technologies behind Universal
Energy in detail, thorium reactors (and the nuclear science that makes them
possible) are the most sophisticated and technically complex systems in the
framework. Further, in the interests of intellectual honesty, this chapter also takes
care to fairly summarize and address criticisms to thorium + nuclear power and
explain why they are wrong on the facts.
86
The Next Giant Leap
When people think of nuclear power, they commonly think of a large facility with
tall steam stacks, perhaps also containing potentially dangerous materials that
could cause calamity under the wrong circumstances. That’s the classic
“Pressurized Water Reactor” which works via a combination of pressurized water
and enriched uranium. In contrast, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs)
use thorium within a high-temperature liquid moderator – no pressure needed –
and they work in a way that avoids atomic energy’s most serious problems.161
Here’s a short list of their highlights:
• LFTRs are extremely safe. Because their fuel and reactant are liquid and not
under extreme pressure (unlike traditional reactors), it is physically
impossible for them to “melt down.”163
• Thorium is more stable than other radioactive elements and is safe to handle
in raw form unless ingested or inhaled. Additionally, it does not require
additional enrichment to power a reactor.164
• LFTRs produce far less waste than Pressurized Water Reactors and can also
consume both nuclear waste and weapons-grade nuclear material as fuel.165
Of what small amounts of waste remain, it takes only decades for it to become
safe as opposed to millennia with reactors powered by enriched uranium.166
• As a result of their efficiency and safety, LFTRs can be much smaller than
Pressurized Water Reactors. Where Pressurized Water Reactors often sit on
multi-acre compounds and require large buffer zones in case of emergencies,
LFTRs can be around the size of a house or even smaller.169
87
The Next Giant Leap
LFTRs are superior to today’s Pressurized Water Reactors in nearly every way
possible, and their capabilities have been known to science since the 1960’s.171 But
that prompts an important question: why aren’t we using them today?
To answer that, we’ll need to cover some background that’s easier to understand
by first reviewing a few terms surrounding atomic energy. What follows is a quick
refresher from science class, or a primer if you’re not familiar with how nuclear
power works. (Feel free to skim it, or to skip it now and refer to it as necessary.)
88
The Next Giant Leap
Fusion: the joining of atomic nuclei together to form a new element, releasing
more energy than even fission. For example: fusing tritium and deuterium
(isotopes of hydrogen) into helium, which is how our sun works.173
Fissile fuel: an isotope of an element that can undergo fission directly inside a
reactor. Uranium-233 and uranium-235 are fissile fuels.
Fertile fuel: an isotope of an element that can’t undergo fission directly, but can
if transmuted into a fissile fuel. Thorium is a fertile fuel.
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR): 1950’s-era reactor designs that use highly
pressurized water to help regulate and make possible a fission reaction inside a
reactor core. Pressurized Water Reactors use solid fuel and are the most common
nuclear reactors operating today.176
89
The Next Giant Leap
Light Water Reactor (LWR): a type of Pressurized Water Reactor that uses
enriched uranium to generate electricity. Most Pressurized Water Reactors take
this form.177
Heavy Water Reactor (HWR): a type of Pressurized Water Reactor that does not
use enriched uranium, but rather uses a type of water with an extra neutron,
known as deuterium oxide or “heavy water,” to sustain fission. These reactors are
less common, but still present proliferation risks – especially for weapons-grade
plutonium.178
Molten Salt Reactor (MSR): a type of advanced reactor design that uses a special
type of non-radioactive salt that becomes liquid at high temperatures to act as
both a moderator for the reactor and a carrier mechanism for nuclear fuel. They
operate at standard atmospheric pressure and have a liquid fuel supply. LFTRs
are a highly efficient form of Molten Salt Reactors that also undergo breeding.179
With these terms defined, we’ll take a minute to review a bit of our history with
atomic energy – specifically addressing why thorium isn’t the primary source of
nuclear fuel today.
Most nuclear reactors, including those within the United States, are fueled by
uranium-235, an isotope representing less than 0.7% of all naturally existing
uranium on Earth.180 Uranium-235 is a fissile fuel, meaning that the possibility
exists for its atomic nucleus to split into isotopes of other elements if hit by a fast-
moving neutron, releasing levels of energy that are millions of times greater than
any known chemical fuel source. For reference: burning a single molecule of
methane releases 9.6 eV (electron volts) of energy.181 Fissioning a single uranium-
235 atom releases 200 MeV (million electron volts) of energy.182 That’s a huge
difference.
For nuclear fission to work for power generation, it involves a concept known as
“criticality”: a threshold, or “critical mass,” where there is enough fissionable
material present for the reaction to sustain itself. As it exists in nature, elemental
uranium is not capable of doing this. Yet the isotopes uranium-233 and uranium-
235 are. If these isotopes are extracted and placed in a controlled environment (or
if enriched into a fuel supply) the fission reaction becomes sustainable over long
90
The Next Giant Leap
But for several reasons, this past approach is less than ideal. For starters, the
uranium-235 fuel cycle is more reactive than thorium and harder to control once
it reaches criticality. Further, its sustainability as a fuel source is limited, and spent
fuel rods must be replaced (along with the reactor core) every 18-24 months183 –
requiring reactor shutdown. As spent fuel is highly radioactive and contaminates
anything it comes in contact with (including disposal equipment), this process
creates an effectively endless supply of radioactive waste. If that wasn’t enough,
Pressurized Water Reactors can present extremely dangerous conditions if any
part of the reaction became unstable or uncontrollable.
Pressurized Water Reactors were invented in the 1950’s and their designs have
remained conceptually consistent since then. Most work just fine. Yet should key
systems fail, the uranium-235 fuel supply (which is normally placed in extractible
rods)184 could remain stuck inside the reactor. Should this happen, the reaction
would continue unrestrained, generating enough heat to melt the fuel supply and
cause it to pool at the bottom of the reactor’s pressurized water core. In this
circumstance, the reaction would accelerate exponentially to amplify heat and
water pressure until it eventually caused a steam explosion – resulting in the
spread of highly radioactive material over a region. That event is called a
“meltdown” and is effectively what happened in Chernobyl.185 Needless to say,
such events are catastrophic beyond hyperbole.
Simply stated? Because at the end of the day, the uranium-235 fuel cycle is
mankind’s best-known pathway to building nuclear weapons.
91
The Next Giant Leap
During World War II, scientists working for the U.S. government (and Third
Reich)186 discovered that certain fissile isotopes had a unique property: if enriched
highly enough, they could reach a super-critical state. And if, in this super-critical
state, they were rapidly bombarded with neutrons, it could create a nuclear
detonation – resulting in the most powerful man-made force in existence.
As it was two of those detonations that ended World War II, the significance of
atomic weaponry could not be downplayed, especially once the Cold War
unfolded. Thus, as civilian nuclear power developed as an energy source, so did
the development of nuclear arms and their delivery mechanisms. These two
sectors converged to ensure our continued use of uranium-235 as fuel.187 But not
just because its highly enriched forms are far more powerful than conventional
explosives in weapons of war. The other, more essential reason is that the
uranium-235 fuel cycle can be leveraged to artificially create plutonium-239 – a
far more potent weapons fuel that does not naturally exist on Earth in any
significant quantity.188 And you need plutonium-239 to build hydrogen bombs.
Nuclear bombs come in varied shapes and sizes. With the right materials,
building a basic nuclear weapon is, in theory, relatively straightforward. The
general idea is to:
3. Tada! – you’ve got yourself a nuclear bomb. (Please don’t actually try
this at home).
The following image shows a nuclear weapon similar to the description above –
a gun-type assembly weapon, which is the bomb the United States dropped on
Hiroshima. It’s fairly simple, conceptually speaking.
92
The Next Giant Leap
Image Source.189
93
The Next Giant Leap
Image Source.190
Yet the fuel and reprocessing cycles within Light and Heavy Water Reactors
provided a convenient method to source plutonium-239 for implosion devices.193
As these devices can be built small in size (basketball or smaller), this led to future
94
The Next Giant Leap
The following image shows the basic stages of the thermonuclear detonation of a
hydrogen bomb, employing a Teller-Ulam design:195
Image source.196
A): The warhead, in its inactive state. The “primary” – the implosion-type fission
bomb – is on top. The “secondary” – the cylinder-shaped object below – is fusion
fuel. It’s comprised of something called lithium-6 deuteride that’s wrapped
around a “sparkplug” of plutonium-239, both of which are suspended in
polystyrene plastic foam.
B): The bomb is triggered. The high explosive charges of the primary activate and
compress the plutonium core into a super-critical state. A fission detonation
occurs.
C). Within the first nanoseconds of detonation, the fission primary emits high
levels of X-ray energy that reflect inside of the bomb case. This irradiates the
polystyrene foam.
D). The heat and X-ray irradiation cause the polystyrene foam to turn into
superheated plasma, which expands massively and compresses the secondary.
As this occurs, the excess neutrons from the primary’s fission reaction cause the
plutonium in the secondary’s sparkplug to undergo fission, creating even more
heat, pressure and radiation.
95
The Next Giant Leap
E). At such extreme heat and pressure, the lithium-6 deuteride separates into
tritium and deuterium, which are isotopes of hydrogen. Under these
circumstances, these isotopes fuse together to form helium in a reaction
thousands of times more powerful than the fission detonations of atomic bombs.
Image Source.197
This is why we fuel our power plants today with nuclear dynamite that creates
waste products that last for thousands of years and rank among the most toxic
96
The Next Giant Leap
substances in existence: to build and maintain nuclear arsenals. That’s the dirty
secret behind our approach to nuclear energy. We have corrupted the most
powerful energy source that we have ever discovered in the name of an arms race,
and at the cost of a world placed in perpetual jeopardy.
If we’re willing to contend with the 15,000 nuclear weapons in global arsenals as
enough,198 and finally forsake the drive to intertwine their production with
civilian nuclear energy, thorium gives us another option. One that can avoid
nearly every complication with past approaches to atomic power, as well as usher
in a clean energy future that exceeds every threshold of our present limitations.
Although the name “thorium” comes from the Norse god of thunder, thorium
isn’t as reactive as its namesake suggests, ranking among the least reactive
radioactive elements.199 It is safe to handle in its raw form so long as it’s not
ingested, and by itself isn’t particularly remarkable. This lack of natural reactivity
and radioactivity, however, is what makes it an ideal fuel in next-generation
reactor designs.
Compare LFTRs and Pressurized Water Reactors to the fable of the tortoise and
the hare, and you’re on the right track.
97
The Next Giant Leap
The reaction works like this: thorium-232 and uranium-233 – the kind of uranium
that's difficult to use in bombs – are dissolved into molten salts (usually lithium
fluoride – but could be any number of alternatives)202 and fed into the reactor. The
molten salts act as a carrier for the thorium fuel and as a catalyst for the reaction,
which keeps the fuel supply at high temperature and at the same time helps refuel
the reactor over time through breeding.203
98
The Next Giant Leap
As LFTRs can reprocess and resupply their own fuel from the waste products of
the original fission reaction, in addition to a hefty supply of fertile thorium
(known as the “blanket”), LFTRs essentially refuel themselves for long periods of
time at high efficiencies. Just how efficient are LFTRs? One ton of thorium-232 in
a LFTR gives us the energy equivalent of 250 tons of uranium-235 in a traditional
Light Water Reactor, or 4.16 million tons of coal in a coal-power plant.206
The breeding process can allow the reactor to continually reprocess and produce
its own fuel from thorium for up to 30 years without replacement (although this
time would be likely be shorter due to the eventual need to replace certain
components of the reactor core).207 For a fuel supply, though, that’s still some 15
times longer than traditional Light Water Reactors.208 Plus, LFTRs are 54%
efficient (some 20% higher than most coal plants) and use 99% of their fuel.209 And
as that 46% efficiency loss primarily takes the form of heat, we can re-capture that
heat to power auxiliary systems that produce resources.
Safety. Because LFTRs operate at normal atmospheric pressure, far less can go
wrong. And in case of emergencies, the fix is simple and effective: gravity. As the
reactant is liquid, it can drain into smaller storage tanks with insufficient critical
mass to sustain the reaction, thus it freezes.210 This makes it physically
impossible for a LFTR to “melt down” in the traditional sense, even under
catastrophic circumstances.211 If a LFTR was targeted by terrorist attacks and
blown up, the liquid reactant would flash-freeze into a solid once exposed to the
open air. Additionally, once its fuel cycle has completed, LFTRs produce
substantially less radioactive waste than Pressurized Water Reactors.212 The
radioactive waste that remains is also short-lived – staying dangerous only for
decades as opposed to millennia.213
99
The Next Giant Leap
Yet doing so is considerably more difficult and less reliable than with traditional
nuclear materials and traditional nuclear reactor designs. Further, uranium-233
and neptunium-237 – even if fashioned into a nuclear weapon – would likely
make the device ineffective for military purposes. The reasons?
100
The Next Giant Leap
101
The Next Giant Leap
Once those factors enter the equation, the optics change significantly.
102
The Next Giant Leap
exactly what was going on in short time (which is how we know Iran,
North Korea, etc., have nuclear weapons programs).
If your life’s ever lacking excitement, try wiring a few million dollars to
an offshore bank account for an order of krytron tubes, ultra-fast relay
switches, large gas centrifuges and a hefty supply of lithium-6. At the very
least you’ll see a whole lot of government property and personnel you
didn’t know existed appear awfully fast. Should any state try the same, that
property and personnel usually manifests in the form of an airstrike to
destroy such a program in its infancy. That’s usually long-before said state
has even conducted the multitude of tests needed to see if their bomb
design even works, as (likely) happened in Syria in 2007.240
And regardless, it’s still poor bomb fuel. Even if they could be efficiently
extracted, uranium-233 and neptunium-237 are ineffective fast-reacting
fissile fuels compared to highly enriched uranium-235 and plutonium-
103
The Next Giant Leap
239. There are only two known nuclear weapon tests that have ever used
uranium-233 – none have ever used neptunium-237. Both of the uranium-
233 devices were largely considered failures due to weaker-than-intended
explosive yields, respectively at 22 kilotons (U.S. – 1955) and 0.2 kilotons
(India, 1998) – relative pittances compared to modern nuclear weapons.243
In the first device, the uranium-233 was chemically purified (which, again,
is highly difficult to do) and was significantly complemented by
plutonium-239 to increase yield.244 As a consequence of those lackluster
tests, there exists little research or expertise to weaponize uranium-233 or
neptunium-237, nor avoid the inherent dangers of doing so.245
And even if there was research or expertise, what’s the endgame? To bring
dynamite to a thermonuclear missile fight? In a realpolitik sense, the
leverage gained by building a nuclear weapon is only as valuable as its
effective usability in a conflict – or a hedge against the same. A single U.S.
Navy Ohio-class submarine can launch 24 missiles – each armed with up
to 12 thermonuclear warheads that each yield 475 kilotons – and the U.S.
Navy has fourteen of such submarines. Nothing from thorium is ever
going to produce anything that can hold a candle to that.
This is why every state with nuclear ambitions has instead invested in
uranium-235 and plutonium-239, for their use is easier and safer than
hijacking the thorium fuel cycle to produce weapons-grade material.
While again, this does not totally alleviate concerns of proliferation
through thorium, it does reduce them to a significance on par with a state
making an in-house weapons program of their own volition – and that’s
becoming increasingly more plausible as technology advances globally.
With these considerations in mind, the clean energy benefits that thorium
and LFTRs bring simply outweigh the theoretical risks of either being
used by a dedicated actor for nefarious purposes.
LFTRs are simpler, smaller and less expensive than Pressurized Water
Reactors. As traditional nuclear reactors have to be pressurized to 160
atmospheres just to function – pressure equal to a mile below the ocean’s
surface246 – they require redundant processes and complex systems to manage the
reaction and ensure nothing goes wrong. Additionally, as Pressurized Water
Reactors present the potential for catastrophic environmental damage should a
reactor melt down or be destroyed through sabotage, they further require
extensive security infrastructure. Combined, these factors cause such reactors to
rank among the most expensive and over-engineered systems on the planet:
104
The Next Giant Leap
Fuel input per gigawatt Fuel input per gigawatt output: 1 ton
output: 250 tons uranium-235 thorium-232. 250 times more efficient
Annual fuel cost for 1-GW Annual fuel cost for 1-GW
reactor: $60 million reactor: $10,000 (estimated)
Total unit construction cost: $7.0 Total unit construction cost: $1.0
billion billion* (1-GW reactor)
As LFTRs are spared the size, expense and security requirements of Light Water
Reactors, they can be built much smaller and less expensively. They can also be
built closer to population centers (as opposed to Pressurized Water Reactors that
need to be geographically isolated), considerably reducing the infrastructural
requirements to transmit power to electric grids.
105
The Next Giant Leap
In computing, Moore’s law has shown that computer processing power at a given
price doubles every two years.250 In aerospace manufacturing, the reduction in
per-unit cost has been roughly 20% every time the number of produced units has
doubled.251 As applicable to the manufacturing of Light Water Reactors, the
University of Chicago estimates a learning ratio of 10% in their 2004 study The
Economic Future of Nuclear Power.252 As LFTRs can be built on assembly lines, that
percentage would likely be higher, expected to be on the order of aerospace-grade
manufacturing.
But even at 10%, this would mean that by the time the 1,000th LFTR was
constructed it would cost around 40% of the first commercially produced unit.
This means that if the estimated price tag for a LFTR stands at $200 million
currently, as more units were produced that cost would fall over time – making
them increasingly more affordable and economically viable. The following except
is from Thorium: Energy Cheaper than Coal, written by Robert Hargreaves, PhD,
Professor of Nuclear Physics at Dartmouth University:
“Boeing, capable of manufacturing $200 million units daily, is a model for LFTR
production. Airplane manufacturing has many of the same critical issues as
manufacturing nuclear reactors: safety, reliability, strength of materials, corrosion,
regulatory compliance, design control, supply chain management and cost, for example.
Reactors of 100 [megawatt] in size costing $200 million can similarly be factory
produced. Manufacturing more, smaller reactors traverses the learning ratio more
rapidly. Producing one per day for 3 years creates 1,095 production experiences,
reducing costs by 65%.”
106
The Next Giant Leap
So if, for example, a region needed to quintuple its electricity generation capacity
in a matter of weeks, small modular LFTRs make this possible – and they make
this possible effectively anywhere. This also would pay dividends toward
disaster-relief efforts, peacekeeping missions, ocean trash cleanup and possibly
even space exploration.
The thorium fuel cycle has been known to science from the start of the atomic era,
and reactor designs associated with that cycle have been around since the 1950s.
The first successful use of thorium came from the Department of Energy’s MSRE
experiment, a 1960’s-era project from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory working
from prior research to build a molten salt reactor for aircraft propulsion.253 The 7.4
Megawatt reactor went online in 1965 and worked successfully for four years
until the experiment was cancelled in 1969 in favor of Light Water Reactors.254
Light Water Reactors eventually became the national standard largely because
they could produce both energy and weapons-grade nuclear material.255
While that unfortunate result came to pass, the results of the MSRE experiment
nonetheless conclusively showed that the reactor concept was viable,256 as have
other tests since. The MSRE experiment confirmed predictions and expectations,
showing the safety, efficiency and heat transfer potential for LFTRs was present
using 1965-era capabilities.257 Several other countries and companies have since
made progress on LFTR technology. Notable high-profile projects include:
107
The Next Giant Leap
China: The Chinese government has invested $3.3 Billion into molten salt reactors
in Gansu province under the name “Thorium-Breeding Molten Salt Reactor
(TMSR).”258 These reactors are being built underground, and are intended to
generate up to 100 megawatts of power. Their reactor models heavily leverage
cogenerative design, intending to use excess energy to power other resource-
producing systems including fresh water, hydrogen and hydrocarbon fuels.259
Although a large focus of this project is electricity for civilian usage, the Chinese
government hopes to apply the results of this project to military applications like
drones and future fast aircraft carriers.261 As reactor miniaturization would be
required for placement within something as small as a drone or warship, such an
advance would present significant implications for NATO states in both civilian
and military sectors – making a matching investment in LFTR technology all the
more pressing. As of this writing, the Chinese program intends to have a
functional reactor prototype by 2025 with large-scale commercialization by the
early 2030’s.262
The Netherlands: The Dutch NRG (Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group) is
one of the leading European nuclear service providers. They have constructed a
prototype Molten Salt Reactor that began fluoride salt irradiation on August 10th,
2018.263 Instead of turning a live reactor “critical” for sustained civilian power, the
NRG intends to conduct a series of experiments (referred to as SALIENT) to
108
The Next Giant Leap
reinforce the validity of thorium energy and use the experiments as templates for
future LFTR development.264
Unique among other thorium R&D efforts outside of G8 states is the NRG’s
installation in Petten, which has all of the decontamination, cleaning, salt
production, radiation shielding and fine element analysis equipment to build a
nuclear reactor in-house.265 As a semi-private venture, the NRG can now compete
with state-level actors to fine-tune the necessary manufacturing requirements to
achieve LFTR viability.
India: A nuclear power since the 1950’s, India is no stranger to the promise,
challenges, and risks inherent to atomic energy. Yet among members of the
“nuclear club,” India is unique in that it has the largest thorium reserves of any
sovereign nation – some 11.5 million metric tons.266 This has led India to accelerate
research and development on thorium-powered molten salt reactors as a part of
its three-stage nuclear program.267
India’s latest effort is the Kalpakkam prototype fast breeder reactor, designed to
generate 500 megawatts of electricity. The Kalpakkam prototype is expected to
reach criticality by the early 2020s.268
Explaining the benefits of the reactor model to the Times of India, the Director
General of the International Atomic Energy Agency noted that “fast reactors can
help extract up to 70 percent more energy than traditional reactors and are safer than
traditional reactors while reducing long-lived radioactive waste by several fold.” It’s
worth noting for our purposes that while fast breeder reactors are akin to LFTRs
in both theory and function, and present promising results even in initial
prototype stages, the designs have had stability issues in the past and present
varied engineering challenges to long-term stability.269
For this reason, India has been running a forerunner reactor to the prototype
they’re building in Kalpakkam under the Fast-Breeder Test Reactor program. This
smaller reactor has had its own technical challenges, yet has reliably produced
impressive amounts of energy even while operating at significantly less than total
capacity.270 In doing so, it has provided Indian nuclear scientists with the data
needed to complete the larger Kalpakkam reactor – which itself can be used as a
stepping stone to further advancement in breeder reactors that leverage the
thorium fuel cycle. The third stage of India’s nuclear program is designed to use
thorium exclusively.271
109
The Next Giant Leap
Russia: while India has nearly completed their prototype fast breeder reactor,
Russia has successfully deployed the technology since the early 1980s at the
Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station. The station currently operates two fast breeder
reactors – the only two in the world that are currently operational – respectively
generating 600 and 885 megawatts each. However, unlike Indian variants, these
Russian fast breeder reactors are fueled by enriched uranium, due to plentiful
Russian reserves and the security “benefit” of uranium’s dual support of civilian
energy and nuclear armament.
“Current reprocessing and recycling technologies still results in radioactive waste that
contains plutonium…Our technology tackles this problem as it allows 97% of weapons-
grade plutonium to be [consumed].”
This project also has the benefit of state backing. As of 2016, President Vladimir
Putin has directed Russia’s state energy institutes, Rosatom and Kurchatov, to
deliver a proposal on how to leverage thorium for next-generation reactors while
improving thorium procurement through rare-earth metal extraction.275 As
reactor technology improves with future research and development, we may see
more sophisticated Russian LFTRs that can be manufactured at scale.
110
The Next Giant Leap
at high efficiencies and output. Although the design wasn’t a Molten Salt Reactor,
their THTR-300 high-temperature thorium reactor worked successfully between
1985 and 1989,278 but was decommissioned in favor of light-water reactors.
Despite its higher costs and unique engineering requirements, the experimental
THTR-300 reactor proved thorium’s viability as a fuel and presented a rich supply
of test data for future high-temperature reactors.
The United States: as the world’s first nuclear power, the United States has
extensive experience with atomic energy. Nearly all nuclear engineering today is
derived from American designs – including reactors fueled by thorium.
Yet most of these reactors were designed with the intent of providing an ample
supply of weapons-grade nuclear material alongside a civilian power program,
and the United States remains the only nation in the world to deploy a nuclear
weapon in an armed conflict. For these reasons, alongside debates over how to
dispose of the nuclear waste associated with Pressurized Water Reactors, atomic
energy in America faces significant political resistance – even though it generated
60% of our emissions-free power in 2016.279
The political mood is changing, however. 2016 saw the first new American
nuclear reactor to come online in decades,280 and that reactor now generates
enough energy to power 650,000 homes.281 Myriad companies, from startups to
long-established nuclear engineering firms, are now exploring advances in
thorium reactor technology. Several are even investing in “microreactors,” scaled-
down modular reactor designs that can be mass-produced on assembly lines.
Although some would still use uranium-235, the mass-produced approach is still
important for several reasons:
First, it leverages one of the attributes that makes America the world’s wealthiest
economy: its ability to build sophisticated systems on a large scale. When it comes
to mass-producing cutting-edge technology with minimal room for error,
America’s manufacturing prowess shines brightest. This gives the United States
perhaps the best advantage when mass-manufacturing modular reactors on
assembly lines to a single standard.
111
The Next Giant Leap
Third, microreactors can be built small enough to deliver via train, ship, or even
truck or aircraft. That enables them to be transported and deployed effectively
anywhere – a key goal of Universal Energy.
112
The Next Giant Leap
113
The Next Giant Leap
The litany of investments in LFTR and other small modular reactor technologies
are made because we know these technologies will work, as prototype after
prototype have proven it so. We know reactor miniaturization works because
we’ve designed and built miniature reactors after thousands of iterations of
modeling and tests. We know that standardization and modularity in the design
of advanced systems gives way to greater scalability and flexibility in
deployment, because we’ve seen these concepts produce this exact effect in every
other industry they’ve been employed.
The developed world isn’t investing many billions of dollars into next-generation
nuclear technology on a whim, nor would it do so if the science was in doubt. It’s
perhaps for this reason why market growth in microreactor technology is
increasing at an annual rate of 19%294 - the investment follows the data, and the
data supports the investment.
114
The Next Giant Leap
It must be mentioned that atomic energy has critics who doubt the technology’s
viability on grounds ranging from safety, waste, and proliferation to economic
and logistical feasibility. Some critics see nuclear, in and of itself, as a
fundamentally unredeemable technology. Others bring up points that are valid
in abstract, yet are used to cast inappropriately generalized aspersions on
nuclear’s promise. Thorium, of course, is no exception.
While there are myriad sources that might articulate these criticisms, I’ve chosen
three articles for their accessible language and range of arguments. The first two
argue against nuclear as a concept, and the third argues against thorium
specifically.
I invite you to review them individually, in full, so that you understand where
they’re coming from in their own words.
The first article is a February 2019 piece in ThinkProgress entitled “Taxpayers should
not fund Bill Gates’ nuclear albatross,” which casts doubt on Bill Gates’ effort to
address climate change by increasing nuclear’s American market share.295 The
author, Joe Romm, writes:
“The reality is that nuclear power is so uneconomical that existing U.S. nuclear power
plants are bleeding cash — and in many places it’s now cheaper to build and run new
wind or solar farms than to simply run an existing nuclear power plant. Saving the
existing unprofitable nuclear plants would require a subsidy of at least $5 billion a year,
according to an analysis last July by the Brattle Group. So, given existing plants are so
uneconomic, it’s no shock that building and financing an entire new fleet of nuclear
plants is wildly unaffordable — especially since a new nuclear plant can cost $10 billion
or more.”
The second article is from Popular Mechanics, entitled “The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
'Green New Deal' Wants to Get Rid of Nuclear Power. That's a Great Idea.”296 The
author, Avery Thompson, had this to say:
“…nuclear simply has too many downsides to ever be a viable way to produce electricity
in the U.S. Primarily, it's just too damn hard and expensive to build new nuclear
capacity in 21st century America. To see why, take a look at the Watts Bar 2 nuclear
115
The Next Giant Leap
power plant. Watts Bar 2 started supplying power in June of 2016, becoming the first
nuclear power plant to be built in the U.S. in two decades. Overall, Watts Bar 2 was the
result of 37 years of construction. For most of that period the reactor simply languished
in a sort of economic limbo. Construction was halted in 1985 due to low energy prices
and only resumed in 2007. At that point, Watts Bar 2 faced another decade of
construction delays and cost overruns. The reactor was initially scheduled to be
completed in 2013; delays pushed back the start date to 2015 and again to 2016. The
initial cost was estimated to be $2.5 billion; the final cost, after a series of unanticipated
hurdles, was $4.7 billion…Reactors are gigantic beasts, and sustaining a nuclear
reaction while drawing power from it requires an absurd level of engineering. Reactors
are expensive, bulky, and complicated, to say nothing of the waste products they produce
or the fear of a catastrophe like Chernobyl or Fukushima.”
He states that the nuclear industry itself remains skeptical of thorium and cites
the 2010 paper from the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory298 mentioned earlier
in support. Rees continues that that even if LFTR waste is much shorter lived, it
will still be toxic and emit harmful radiation. Rees’s final point is that the
effectiveness of renewables is rapidly improving, so even if thorium proves itself
in the next 30 years (by Rees’ assessed timeline), it will arrive to solve a problem
that’s no longer present. He concludes that the combination of these factors make
thorium too new, too untrusted, too potentially dangerous, and too expensive
when we already have an energy solution – renewables – in hand.
These articles and mindsets were cited verbatim because I believe in intellectual
honesty. They were also cited because they’re wrong. Not just on the facts when
it comes to 2020-era technology, but also just as importantly on the role of nuclear
in the context of the energy, resource and ecological requirements of our time.
To explain why, we’ll boil down the primary arguments of these three pieces (and
the NNL assessment299 cited in The Guardian) into three overarching claims that
we’ll review in order.
116
The Next Giant Leap
• Claim One: Nuclear energy is too expensive in terms of cost and safety,
and always will be, thus we should focus exclusively on renewables.
Some of these concerns have merit in abstract. But they don’t necessarily apply to
nuclear as a technology any more than concerns about burning zeppelins apply
to aircraft as a technology. Further, nearly all focus on Pressurized Water Reactors
and point to their drawbacks as cause to paint the entire field of atomic science
with a wide brush.
The reason why this chapter focused on smaller LFTRs and made repeated
mention of small modular reactors (even if powered by uranium-235) is because
they avoid these problems, particularly cost criticisms, by design. Large-scale
Pressurized Water Reactors further present major safety hazards if things go
wrong, especially as they increase in size. They need massive containment and
cooling apparatuses, redundant safety mechanisms, security features, buffer
zones and control systems. These highly expensive components are not necessary
for LFTR and newer small modular reactor designs. That alone is a differentiating
cost factor on the scale of billions of dollars.
Then there’s the fact that most every power plant in America today – nuclear
especially – is built as a unique entity, designed and deployed to order. The
plant’s concrete, metal, wiring, HVAC, control systems, thermal management,
waste processing, plumbing, walkways, stairwells, doors and all points in
117
The Next Giant Leap
between are designed, architected and engineered from the ground up each and every
time – as is the regulatory approval for each specific building site.
For every nuclear power plant thus far built, a company gathered an architect,
structural engineer, nuclear engineer, electrical engineer, environmental
engineer, fluid engineer and mechanical engineer to design the plant. Then they
hired the contractors to build it, the banks to fund it, the insurance companies to
underwrite it, the bond companies to back it, the lawyers to sign off on it and the
regulators to approve it. And if they wanted to build another, they then had to
wipe the slate clean and do it all over again from scratch because the math and
materials that worked for plant A didn’t work for plant B.
It’s no wonder, then, how a nuclear plant can cost billions to construct today. Any
system of any level of sophistication would cost the same under those
circumstances. If your car had to be built this way, it would cost millions of
dollars. If a commercial aircraft had to be built this way, it also would cost billions
of dollars. Automated manufacturing changes this, as it does in any other
sophisticated industry. It started with Ford’s assembly line and now works to
build jetliners. Once we apply automated manufacturing to nuclear, the same cost
effectiveness will be achieved as it has in literally every other industry automated
manufacturing has been employed.
118
The Next Giant Leap
regulatory approval – a hard sell to any entity that must bleed cash for fees and
loan interest before even breaking ground.302
This most certainly doesn’t mean that regulations in and of themselves are a bad
thing – especially for an industry as sophisticated as atomic energy. But the goal
of regulation should be to ensure safety and ideal standards of operation. They
shouldn’t hinder the nuclear industry by requiring 2019-era technology to comply
with regulations geared to 1970’s-era reactor designs.303 Nor should they make
nuclear technology jump through unnecessary financial hoops, the costs of which
are then pointed at to feed a narrative of financial unviability in a self-fulfilling
prophecy. We regulate plenty of other sophisticated industries: commercial
aerospace, private space ventures, submersible crafts and industrial chemistry
without burdening them to insolvency. We can and should do the same with
nuclear.
It will cost money no matter what energy source we employ to solve future energy
needs – and costs will vary depending on how they’re integrated. Both
renewables and clean nuclear can and should be employed to their greatest
strengths and cost efficiencies. But suggesting that nuclear is too expensive while
touting renewables as an inexpensive alternative makes hefty omissions about the
119
The Next Giant Leap
Claim: Unproven
In a vacuum, the critics are right: thorium-fueled LFTRs, and for that matter,
uranium-fueled Small Modular Reactors, have yet to prove themselves as large-
scale viable technologies. But no emergent technology in history has ever arrived
to market with “proven viability.” In 1890, the car had unproven viability; the
same goes for aircraft in 1910. The computer had unproven viability in the 1970’s.
The touch smartphone had unproven viability in the early 2000’s – Microsoft CEO
Steve Ballmer famously said the iPhone would “never gain market share.”304 The
internet, even, had unproven viability – one of the foremost computer scientists
at the time dismissed it as a fantasy in a February 1995 article in Newsweek entitled
“Why The Web Won’t Be Nirvana.” The author, Clifford Stoll, PhD, wrote:
“After two decades online, I'm perplexed. It's not that I haven't had a gas of a good time
on the Internet…But today, I'm uneasy about this most trendy and oversold
community. Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and
multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual
communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and
modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.
Baloney! Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth is no online
database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a
competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.”
It could be that Mr. Stoll or Mr. Ballmer might find comradery with Mr. Romm,
Mr. Thompson, Mr. Rees, and other critics today. Expertise in a specialized focus
can lend itself to tunnel vision that hinders views of the larger picture. Emergent
technologies always need refinement. That’s how technology works. That’s how
it has always worked.
That’s why data storage went from a million dollars per gigabyte in the 1980s to
less than ten cents per gigabyte today.305 That’s why your smartphone, laptop or
flat screen television doesn’t cost millions of dollars today. That’s why you can
120
The Next Giant Leap
send a video to any continent on the planet within seconds, whereas back when
JFK was President an intercontinental call could cost a small fortune.
• The 1960’s MSR experiment was successful and proved thorium workable.
• India’s fast breeder reactor has proven the science behind thorium.
• Russia - the only nuclear power on par with the United States - has proven
fast breeder reactors workable, and are currently investing in advanced
thorium reactors.
121
The Next Giant Leap
We spoke to weaponization earlier in the chapter. LFTRs and the thorium fuel
cycle can be weaponized in theory, but not easily and not practically by military
standards. That’s the important distinction: it’s theoretically possible for a state to
make a crude bomb with uranium-233 or neptunium-237. But that says nothing
about miniaturizing the bomb into a missile-driven warhead or keeping the
mechanisms stable for long-term storage, nor the ability to do these things in
secret – all of which are required capabilities to present even a moderate threat.
Most nuclear powers today have thermonuclear capabilities that uranium-233 or
neptunium-237 can’t meet in a best-case scenario, and no state’s going to raise the
scales in a conflict to a nuclear fight they’re certain to lose badly.
The waste angle, too, is highly contextual. Yes, nuclear waste is dangerous and
toxic – including waste from thorium. But thorium’s waste lasts for only 300 years
compared to the millennia from waste from the uranium-235 fuel cycle.308 And
most nuclear waste being produced today still has potential to function as fuel
within Molten Salt Reactors309 – which by itself only needs one ton of thorium to
generate one gigawatt of energy.310
Of the waste that one ton produces, 83% becomes stable in 18 years, with the
remaining 17% reaching stability ~282 years later.311 It’s well within the realm of
feasibility for us to hold that waste in secure underground facilities for that
timeline, especially since the most danger occurs only during the first few decades
of storage, with the material becomes progressively safer over time.
122
The Next Giant Leap
Nuclear critics say that’s still unacceptable, and that we’re still better off sticking
with renewables. Yet even though renewables are essential for a clean energy
future, they’re far from waste free – and it’s highly disingenuous to suggest
otherwise. Wind turbines are difficult to recycle and often end up in landfills (the
bulldozer in the below-left image is the size of a school bus). Solar panels produce
gallium-arsenide (arsenic) and chemical batteries contain strong acids and heavy
metals like mercury, lead and cadmium.313 These are highly toxic substances that
don’t lose their toxicity over time as radioactive materials do. Once they leech into the
environment, they become a permanent part of it.
123
The Next Giant Leap
Then there’s the material question. From the table above, we see that the materials
required to manufacture solar panels weigh in at 16,447 metric tons per terawatt
of generating capacity314 (one terawatt = one billion kilowatts). At 10,260 metric
tons, wind comes in third.315 Mindful of Universal Energy’s annual generation
target of 12.5 trillion kilowatt-hours (12,500 terawatt-hours), this would require a
daily energy generation capacity of at least 34.25 terawatt-hours. For sake of
argument, a power-generation capacity of 34.25 terawatts under these figures
would translate to a material throughput of 534,530 metric tons for solar and some
351,400 metric tons for wind. And that’s just for the United States, some 4.3% of
humanity. The rest of the world’s material requirements to exclusively leverage
renewables would represent an even higher order of magnitude.
Such figures don’t incorporate the carbon emissions or waste footprint inherent
to sourcing these materials in the first place – nor the emissions produced in the
manufacture of billions of solar panels or wind turbines. Nor do they incorporate
the carbon emissions and cost externalities – both financial and ecological –
presented by transporting, installing and wiring billions of solar panels and wind
turbines, which, in such implementations, would certainly require vast purchases
of expensive land.317 Think of how many copper or rare earth mines we’d need.
How much diesel fuel we’d consume. How many non-recyclable materials or
toxic chemicals we’d produce or dispose of at any step of the supply chain.
The waste implications involved with such considerations are enormous, as are
the environmental impacts.
124
The Next Giant Leap
For example, the following image shows the Escondida copper mine in Chile:
This image shows the Mountain Pass rare earth mine in California, which sources
the lithium-ion needed for advanced batteries.
125
The Next Giant Leap
Those examples are only three mines of thousands worldwide. Also not shown are
the processing plants, smelting facilities, or human toils required in any of the
extractive efforts required to rely on a renewable-exclusive portfolio for our
future energy needs – nor the ultimate end-state waste created once these systems
are ultimately discarded. These considerations, even in a vacuum, carry immense
humanitarian and ecological consequences. The following images show child
workers mining cobalt and lithium for rechargeable batteries:
126
The Next Giant Leap
Simply stated: clean nuclear is the key to making renewables truly clean.
Most importantly, the Universal Energy framework is made possible only by the
cogenerative benefits of high-temperature reactors. Without that energy source,
we can’t extract fresh water and hydrogen fuel from billions of gallons of
seawater, nor can we initially keep that water hot to store energy generated from
renewables on a nationwide scale. We’re left with chemical batteries that carry an
intensive material throughput themselves – now on a massive scale – yet without
the energy abundance needed to solve resource scarcity. All that effort, time and
material invested – along with what would certainly be trillions of dollars – and
we’d still be facing the same malady that’s dogged us from the dawn of time.
In that context, storing a few hundred barrels of radioactive material that becomes
inert in 300 years is the better option – all the more so since Universal Energy still
employs renewables to their greatest strengths within municipal infrastructure.
But as we’re only able to manufacture renewables in a carbon-free capacity with
next-generation nuclear, the numbers behind renewables as a singular solution
don’t add up even if we had the capital and material basis to pull off such an
endeavor. As we don’t, the waste implications of attempting to do so far eclipse
anything nuclear brings to bear – and no amount of selective criticism or
ideological advocacy is going to change that.
127
The Next Giant Leap
Moving Forward
Yet there are outside forces slowing down this process – some of which we have
already familiarized ourselves with. Because of the social hesitancy around
nuclear power, politicians are often less eager to embrace advances in the
technology. It is, of course, politically safer to stage photo-ops in front of wind
turbines and solar panels while quietly pivoting towards coal or natural gas for
baseload power when the cameras are turned off. This is effectively what
Germany has done.318
But that’s not good enough anymore. The future risks to humanity’s long-term
resource supplies, the state of Earth’s warming climate, the state of future
population growth, and the corresponding state of future ecological collapse rank
among the most serious problems our species has ever faced. And in the short-
term future we will be facing all of them, more or less simultaneously.
Depending on renewables alone will not generate the immense energy required
to provide for our needs and long-term growth estimates. Depending on
renewables alone will not bring about an abundance of raw, inexpensive energy
required to synthetically produce resources to an effectively unlimited scale.
Depending on renewables alone will not extend baseload energy redundancy and
reliability to provide all this and more for the indefinite future. There must be a
political and social inflection point to recognize this reality.
When the political and social will becomes present – a likelier “when” than “if”
due to the realities of future energy and resource needs320 – politicians need to
consider regulatory streamlining. As we reviewed earlier, new nuclear initiatives
128
The Next Giant Leap
face challenges that are as much regulatory as they are technical,321 and that’s a
problem that needs to change.322 Regulation is a necessary – yet significant –
component of the cost of implementing atomic energy, and regulators need both
the freedom and impetus to craft regulations for 2019-era technology.
From there, we can begin to delve into the engineering nuances required to
develop modular thorium reactors that can be safely mass-produced to a single
standard. The aerospace industry is a perfect model for this goal, as it has
automated the fast-turnaround construction of highly-sophisticated systems with
extremely tight tolerances and even lower margins for error. If Boeing can mass-
manufacture a commercial jetliner in nine days under these requirements,323 we
can do the same for modular reactors. Even so, some of the open considerations
involving these engineering nuances include:
Design and process optimization. Molten salt reactors may not be a new
technology in concept, but they have neither the research behind them nor the
operational hours of Pressurized Water Reactors fueled by uranium-235. This has
left several outstanding technical challenges. Among them:
• Whether the reactor design should use a one or two-fluid exchanger, both
of which present engineering tradeoffs.324
• How to prevent salt freezing if the reactor heat gets too low.326
129
The Next Giant Leap
somehow.329 New reactor designs (of any type) are frequently ignited by an array
of neutron sources.330 But some of the most portable include beryllium and
americium,331 which are safer and less expensive than either radium or plutonium
that could also serve in this function.332 Science and industry will need to
determine if these methods work for thorium, and, if not, to identify a method
that minimizes safety risk and doesn’t come with strict security controls.
Export designs, controls and marketing. Universal Energy and the technology it
proposes seeks to create a new market for large-scale energy generation, one with
nigh-limitless economic potential in developing and modernizing nations. How
we market such technologies, and what controls we place on them, are issues that
must be negotiated between private industry, global regulators, and diplomatic
and security services. Once such technologies reach greater degrees of maturity,
haste becomes critical, as we never want to be playing catch up in a global market
against foreign competitors who got the jump on American innovation.
It’s well within our capabilities to answer these questions and address these
challenges, and do so in a way that revolutionizes our approach to the most
powerful source of energy we have ever discovered. If we were to truly invest in
Molten Salt Reactor and microreactor technologies, it would lay the foundation
for a clean, sustainable, affordable, and rapidly-deployable means of baseload
power generation nationwide. We could advance our world and support the
American economy for generations in one stroke. And while this would present
yet another tool, alongside renewables, to dramatically multiply our potential for
energy generation, it also would serve a more direct and even more important
function: excess energy for fresh water and hydrogen fuel.
130
The Next Giant Leap
I believe that water will one day be employed as fuel, that hydrogen and oxygen which
constitute it, used singly or together, will furnish an inexhaustible source of heat and
light.
- Jules Verne
131
The Next Giant Leap
132
The Next Giant Leap
It’s important to note in this context that humanity isn’t facing a water crisis in
abstract; we’re facing, specifically, a freshwater crisis. 71% of the planet’s surface
is covered by water, yet less than 2% of that water is fresh – and 80% of that
freshwater is locked in polar ice.334 For consumption purposes, that last 20% of
freshwater - 0.4% of all water on our planet – is the only percentage that has
historically mattered. Thanks to modern seawater desalination technologies, that
is no longer true today.
133
The Next Giant Leap
338
134
The Next Giant Leap
From there, the remaining hot brine is pumped back into the system
to counterflow with the influx of cold seawater, helping to heat new seawater and
recycle a majority of heat energy in the process.339 What waste remains is
essentially very salty water, which can be evaporated to leave only salt.
Image source.340
The use of the word “unlimited” here bears special mention. There is a vastness
to the oceans that “71% of Earth’s surface” does not give justice to. Only 0.4% of
water on Earth is both fresh and accessible, and that’s been enough for humanity’s
entire existence until now. With that in mind, we would have to increase our
water consumption thousands of times for desalination to even measurably
impact sea levels – especially since the water cycle would eventually return all
135
The Next Giant Leap
desalinated water to the ocean. And even if we did somehow lower sea levels, it
would be to our benefit anyway, as sea levels are rising due to climate change.343
As these intake systems can operate twenty-four hours a day, a large volume of
water can be secured through a slow yet steady flow – meaning it does not need
to be strong enough to measurably interfere with the local ecosystem. The greatest
environmental impact of MSFD plants today usually involves the dumping of
waste brine back into the ocean with chemicals344 – steps that need not be taken
with modern facilities for two primary reasons:
2. Currently, some MSFD facilities pump waste brine back into the ocean, which
raises local salinity levels and can cause environmental damage. With
Universal Energy, we have plenty of excess energy to boil off waste brine and
leave only salt as a byproduct.
Let's say our implementation of Universal Energy desalinated a total of 500 billion
gallons of water annually. Each gallon of seawater contains roughly 4.5 ounces of
salt.346 Therefore, 500 billion gallons of seawater would contain 2.25 trillion ounces
of salt, or 140.63 billion pounds. That's a lot of salt – but our national salt
consumption is equally high.
136
The Next Giant Leap
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States consumed 69,500
thousand metric tons of salt in 2015 for all purposes.347 At 69.5 million metric tons,
that translates to 153.2 billion pounds of salt. This means a 500-billion-gallon
annual desalination effort would yield around 91% of our annual salt
consumption. At an estimated price of $40-$50 per long tonne (2,204lbs) 140.63
billion pounds would yield roughly $2.5 billion in profits from annual salt sales
(assuming $40 per tonne).348
Hydrogen Fuel
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.349 It’s light, clean, and
highly combustible, with an energy-per-mass ratio greater than any known fossil
energy source.350 This makes it a flexible alternative to petroleum if we go about
sourcing and storing it in the right way.
137
The Next Giant Leap
But even so, challenges to using hydrogen remain as production is only one half
of the equation. The other is how to contain, transport and stabilize it –
considerations of no small significance. Because hydrogen is highly reactive, it is
easily contaminated as it naturally bonds to other substances.356 And due to its
volatility, it has usually required storage in containment tanks at high pressures.
While metal tanks work in a laboratory or industrial setting, the weight of these
tanks and the safety risks presented by the explosive nature of compressed
hydrogen have made this approach questionable for civilian use. Thankfully,
recent advancements have given us new alternatives, such as:
Although we’ll be reviewing materials further in Chapter Ten, one of the most
noteworthy in the context of hydrogen is graphene,358 which serves several
important roles in the Universal Energy framework. Conceptually, graphene is a
one-atom-thick sheet of carbon that is structured in a way that is both ultra-strong
and ultra-conductive.359 This allows graphene to both function as an efficient
battery360 and also a structural material – one that is 200 times stronger and six
times lighter than steel.361 As it can be made paper-thin while remaining flexible,
graphene is well-suited to make storage tanks for hydrogen in vehicles and other
138
The Next Giant Leap
We can also use synthetic hydrocarbons for long-term hydrogen storage. Once
processed into a solution that stays liquid at normal pressure, we can store an
effectively unlimited amount of hydrogen in tanks that don’t require compression
and would work similarly to how we transport liquid fuels today. And unlike the
environmental damage caused by crude oil drilling, refining and transport,
synthetic oil can be processed at facilities that remove ecologically hazardous
steps from the manufacturing chain. This becomes all the more important when
using hydrogen as a medium to create fuel from atmospheric carbon capture.
(We’ll go over those details next chapter).
139
The Next Giant Leap
Image source.367
Although hydrogen fuel cells are often looked to as a replacement for oil, they
also have potential to power remote areas that are environmentally hostile to
power generation. There are several circumstances where it’s not feasible to rely
on local power systems and where solar isn't possible (war/disaster zones, remote
research facilities, long-voyage ships, space travel, etc.), yet fuel cells can provide
energy as long as a supply of hydrogen exists. Future advances in graphene
battery technology can also complement this possibility, allowing for robust
energy storage even when far away from civilization’s amenities.
140
The Next Giant Leap
With municipally integrated renewables doing their part to power cities and
reduce the energy demand they place on regional electric grids, employing the
baseload electricity generation and excess heat energy of LFTRs to both desalinate
seawater and extract hydrogen becomes a routine deliverable of the framework.
Yet that merely reflects only the products of this approach – its underlying
strategic value is itself a step further. As we’ve discussed previously, a key
component of Universal Energy is the intention to deploy energy technologies
strategically so that they can work together as a team to become greater than the
sum of their parts in operation.
The next stage of this goal comes through conceptual “CHP Plants” – (Combined
Heat and Power) – which are modular arrays of the technologies thus-far
discussed that can be installed rapidly in varied configurations for specific
applications. As we’ll see later in this writing, these applications might include
atmospheric scrubbing of greenhouse gasses, waste processing and recycling,
large-scale ocean cleanup or supplemental energy and resource production. Yet
they each would deliver their intended goals as a system that’s standardized and
cogenerative in design, enabling turnkey deployment of energy generation and
resource production to solve most any problem caused by the absence of either.
141
The Next Giant Leap
142
The Next Giant Leap
The strength of a structure does not stem from a single beam or fastener – it stems from
the sum of its components in perpetual reinforcement.
This mindset is the basis for everything lasting that humans have ever built.
In turn, it will be the mindset for everything lasting that we will ever build.
143
The Next Giant Leap
144
The Next Giant Leap
Most power plants today have an efficiency of around 33%.372 This means 67% of
their generated energy is discarded in the form of heat that either dissipates into
the surrounding air or is absorbed into the ground. That’s more than twice the
energy used to generate electricity in the first place. If we’re going to build an
advanced and clean energy future, we must improve the efficiency and utility of
our power infrastructure over the long-term.
The problem? Entropy and thermal loss are unavoidable byproducts of energy
transfer – which means we’re probably never going to be able to build power
plants that operate at superb levels of efficiency. But we can harness waste energy
to power auxiliary functions at low additional cost. This is something Universal
Energy seeks to employ at the design stage so that every aspect of power-
generation is engineered to maximize cogeneration from the ground-up. And not
just within a given facility, either, but also externally to other facilities that could
be modularly integrated within an indefinitely scalable standard.
145
The Next Giant Leap
While this design is significantly more aggressive than even our most ambitious
approaches to energy efficiency, it is not inventive in and of itself, and has several
proven demonstrations of its concepts within both power generation and
manufacturing.373 One notable example is the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory’s REopt™ model (Renewable Energy Integration & Optimization),
which is designed to identify renewable and/or energy efficiency opportunities
within power infrastructure. One of their flagship projects in Arizona (home to
the nation’s largest nuclear reactor)374 involved the integration of light-water
nuclear with renewables to efficiently desalinate seawater into hydrogen.375
Source: NREL. A desalination nuclear-renewable hybrid energy system uses electricity from a
nuclear reactor and solar photovoltaics. Illustration from Mark Ruth, NREL
379
146
The Next Giant Leap
But cogeneration today – even if applied to strong effect – still reflects the same
foundational shortcomings of our current energy schema. Each effort looks for
practical – yet piecemeal – improvements within unique, ad-hoc systems that are designed
and implemented as such. Even if NREL’s REopt engineers retain the best tools and
brightest minds in the world, everything they do for one application in one area
will have to be completely re-done from scratch in another because the nature,
capabilities, and limitations of the technology deployment hinge on energy
systems that are essentially made to order.
This helps change the fundamentals of the energy question from “how can we
identify individual efficiency improvements within unique power-generating
systems” to questions both more practical and expansive in vision.
2. With that known, how easily could we upgrade that facility’s desalination
capacity to 60 million gallons, add on another ½ ton of hydrogen
production and 100 megawatts more electricity?
147
The Next Giant Leap
4. How much land would this require at what size of building envelope and
what terrain limitations would apply?
In a world where energy systems are unique and made to order, the presence of
these very questions sustains the business models of global consulting
conglomerates. Their answers take months to derive and cost millions of dollars.
The unknowns are removed from the equation because each energy system is
model-identical in similar application to a D-cell battery – and can couple, swap
or decouple from others just like the very same. Everything from power
requirements, performance specifications to product lifetime and physical
footprint can be granulized in database tables that could be used to generate
dynamic reports with the click of a mouse.
While the engineering complexities of each system of course remain, they’re also
contained within the module. They do not permeate into the module’s capabilities
or connection interfaces. Nor do they need to. Few of us know how to design or
build a lightbulb, battery, USB hard drive or computer monitor, for instance.
We simply know how it’s supposed to work and how to replace it if it doesn’t.
And, if we want a second one, simply get a second one and plug it in. This is how
the world of technology works in nearly every commercial sector. A rare
exception is power-generation.
148
The Next Giant Leap
As applicable to Universal Energy, we’ll take a brief overview of how the concept
of cogeneration would apply to CHP Plants.
Every technology within the framework deals with electricity, heat, and/or water.
When these technologies are deployed in close proximity to one another, they can
easily be tied together to harness waste energy.
The central technology behind CHP Plants are Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
(LFTRs). As far as power plants go, LFTRs get hot – quite hot – (900 °C / 1,600
°F).385 As the reactor's heat exchangers are well-separated from anything
radioactive and its electric generator is driven by an inert helium loop, waste heat
can be harnessed as central energy source for secondary functions.
149
The Next Giant Leap
Sample CHP Plant Configuration. Note citation for link to larger version.387
150
The Next Giant Leap
Worse, solutions to this problem that involve scaling back fossil fuels have proven
politically precarious,393 as the oil and gas industry is a major driver of the global
economy and many entrenched power players owe their wealth to its lucrative
returns. Even if this wasn’t the case, the greenhouse gas emissions from
manufacturing, agriculture and global commerce would still persist even if our
fuel supply chain was carbon neutral.394
Getting ahead of the impacts of climate change are laudable efforts. But they, in
all truth, needed to begin decades ago when the first warnings were sounded (and
unfortunately ignored).395 Humanity has already passed an initial carbon tipping
point of 400 parts-per-million396 and global fossil fuel usage and consumption is
accelerating397 – as is our population – meaning that even though we recognize the
problem of climate change, it’s getting continually worse even as we attempt to
slow it down.
151
The Next Giant Leap
reacts with certain compounds, removing them to form a substance that can be
further processed into materials – including fuel.399
As with other Direct Air Capture technologies, water and fuel are produced as
deliverables alongside renewable electricity through cogenerative functions.
152
The Next Giant Leap
Another noteworthy component of this system is use of a chemical cycle that both
uses non-toxic materials and is functionally closed-loop,401 meaning that the
chemicals (and thermal energy) used for Direct Air Capture is continually re-used
and does not require frequent refueling over time. This makes the method both
environmentally friendly and indefinitely scalable.
Several other ventures have come to market with similar technologies. Iceland’s
Climeworks’ models, for example, are both modular and scalable with their
largest units being capable of capturing nearly 5,000 kilograms of carbon per-
day.402 In addition to standard carbon capture, they also are able to condense
captured carbon into usable fuels403 or solid carbon for use in materials.404
153
The Next Giant Leap
The costs of these systems stand to fall significantly over time through continued
investment and research, and their operational costs stand to fall even further if
implemented within a modular energy framework. And while cost reductions are
realized maximally if integrated within CHP Plants, that shouldn’t overshadow
other highly significant benefits that occur as well.
154
The Next Giant Leap
Because captured carbon is stored on-site, along with molecular hydrogen from
electrolysis facilities, there is ample source material to make unique hydrocarbons
with low-carbon emissions.406 This means that not only are we able to produce
hydrogen fuel through CHP Plants, we’re also able to further produce specialized
hydrocarbons that have applications within chemical engineering, fuels for motor
vehicles, heavy machinery, commercial aviation and aerospace.
Due to the modular nature of this approach, CHP Plants can be deployed both
rapidly and at scale – also in a way that is location-agnostic. Building hundreds
or thousands of them worldwide is limited only by vision and capital.
Considering that their overnight cost is not prohibitively expensive408 in the
context of nationwide power409 (or avoiding the consequences of resource scarcity
and climate change), it’s an ideal approach that can cascade in effect to present
immense social benefits practically anywhere on the planet.
Symbiotic, cogenerative energy deployments are our next stage in the evolution
of power generation not just because they solve several problems at once. They
also address physical and economic challenges presented by our current ad-hoc
approach to power generation:
1. Constructing a single facility that can generate multiple types of energy and
resources at one location is significantly less expensive than if these facilities
were located far from each other.
155
The Next Giant Leap
4. The fresh water produced from CHP Plants can come out hot – which will
become important as we look at the concept of the National Aqueduct within
the next few chapters.
While we began with electricity, water, and fuel out of necessity, we can extend
the framework further in the fields of agriculture, chemical engineering, recycling
processes and next-generation building materials. The next step towards that
future comes from the National Aqueduct – a vital function of Universal Energy
that ties each of its core technologies together into a nationwide network of energy
and resource abundance.
156
The Next Giant Leap
Water, the hub of life. Water is its mater and matrix, mother and medium. Water is the
most extraordinary substance. Practically all its properties are anomalous, which
enabled life to use it as building material for its machinery. Life is water dancing to the
tune of solids.
- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
157
The Next Giant Leap
158
The Next Giant Leap
Thanks to three things we’ve been perfecting for the past 50 years: oil pipelines,
high-voltage power lines and interstate highway networks, not only do we have
the free space and wherewithal to build this system, we’ve already built it for
other substances – at higher stakes and with higher difficulties. To elaborate,
consider a series of three images. First, if you recall from Chapter Two, we see
that our nation has a highway system connecting nearly every area of our country:
159
The Next Giant Leap
160
The Next Giant Leap
Third, consider a map of nationwide fossil fuel pipelines and refinery networks:
1. Highways and high voltage power lines give us plenty of free space to run
water pipelines. Our road networks provide ample open space to install solar
panels while removing the requirement to buy land, as this land is generally
owned by public services that have exclusive authority to build on them.
Roads and highways also have clearance at each side and tend to be flat and
straight – a trait usually shared by high voltage power line networks. This
gives us thousands of miles of open, unused space to build a National
Aqueduct. As this space has been cleared of potential obstructions
beforehand, construction in these locations has far fewer obstacles than
commercial land parcels.
161
The Next Giant Leap
Water pipelines can come factory prefabricated and be designed for rapid,
modular construction. Environmental risks are reduced, as the only substance
a leaking water pipeline would spill is fresh water. In tandem, modular
deployment and lower environmental risk would allow us to build a water
pipeline network at a lower overall cost than with oil pipelines. We can also
use the lessons we’ve learned with oil pipelines to get a head start, as the
expertise needed to plan and build such a pipeline network already exists.
Much of the work involved with developing a National Aqueduct has already
been done for us in terms of research and development, engineering, and methods
of implementation. But to have the National Aqueduct accomplish its intended
goals and meet our needs in full, we’ll need to establish a few requirements for
the system:
Scale of delivery: Whatever system we use to transport fresh water must work
over thousands of miles, as water must be delivered from the coasts to areas deep
inland. And as the land we have to work with isn’t flat with consistently warm
weather, this system must also be deployable over varied terrain and climates –
especially cold climates.
162
The Next Giant Leap
163
The Next Giant Leap
Production
164
The Next Giant Leap
Transmission
The sensors within the pipeline could serve multiple purposes: they might detect
contaminants, determine water quality, or send alerts if they were compromised
or modified without authorization. Since each separate pipe within each pipeline
could have its own sensors that connect independently to a control network,
water quality could be monitored instantly on both local and national levels.
165
The Next Giant Leap
Storage
166
The Next Giant Leap
These arrays of storage tanks would contain millions of gallons of water and
could be installed as distribution centers throughout the country. Each
agricultural and population center would be served redundantly, with each
storage center servicing multiple regions. The storage component would
additionally provide several important functions:
Staging: it’s difficult to guess how much water a region might use with certainty,
as external factors such as weather, time of year, and state of economy all impact
how much water is consumed. Maintaining supply and pressure over thousands
of miles under inconsistent demand would be a logistical nightmare, which rules
out any system that delivers water directly.
However, when used as a part of a staging system water storage tanks can contain
enough water to supply a region for a certain time period – say a week – which
equips them to handle unexpected spikes in demand. In turn, water would be
supplied from production facilities to maintain consistent levels.
167
The Next Giant Leap
This pays homage to the concept of constant resupply, which bears special
mention in this context. The National Aqueduct would be constantly producing
and pumping water. This consistent operation is key to meeting our immense
water requirements.
For example: a common bathtub faucet has a flow rate of roughly 120
gallons/hour.410 If that faucet was to never turn off, it would provide 2,880 gallons
a day, 86,400 gallons a month and 1.036 million gallons a year – just from your
bathtub faucet.
With a water velocity of just 15 miles an hour, a 12” pipe can have a flow rate of
150 gallons per second.411 That translates to 540,000 gallons an hour, 12.96 million
gallons a day, 363 million gallons a month and 3.35 billion gallons a year. And
that’s just from one 12” pipe. Imagine what an array of nine pipes could do, and
imagine that pipeline array multiplied by hundreds. A constantly running
pipeline network could easily transport hundreds of billions of gallons.
Overflow / active water management. Nodding to the fact that water demand is
inconsistent in most areas of the country, there will be times where one region has
168
The Next Giant Leap
more water than it needs or needs more water than it has. This requires the system
to feature an overflow component.
By design, water storage tanks would only be filled to 70-80% of capacity, which
would give them the ability to accept more water from other regions if supply
exceeds demand. On the other hand, should a region consume more water than
anticipated, overflow in one region can be diverted to another as necessary. With
this attention to storage and re-routing, the National Aqueduct can maintain
consistent uptime and high degrees of reliability.
Ultraviolet sterilization and filtration. Storing water for weeks on end can lead
to circumstances where microbial agents could conceivably cause contamination.
Further, there is always the concern of invasive species through any sort of
aquatic transfer (think Zebra mussels).412 In addition to standard filtration
mechanisms and high temperature of water, the Aqueduct’s storage and
transmission component would have a series of UV lights to further sterilize
stored water. Ultraviolet light, especially at high intensity, is lethal to any
microbial lifeform (bacterial or viral) with high reliability, allowing for long-term
water storage without fears of stagnation or outside contamination.
Control
The control component is the brain and central nervous system of the National
Aqueduct, yet also works as a decentralized framework allowing any region to
control the flow of water in its jurisdiction. This would be accomplished through
a series of manned control centers at national, regional, state and local levels,
similar to the current management functions of large public utilities.
In this case, the control component would monitor the system to ensure
consistency and stability, and further act if it detected a contaminant, outside
tampering, or mechanical failure.
169
The Next Giant Leap
The sensor network within the National Aqueduct could further provide data to
create models that would be greatly beneficial toward ideal operation, and which
could, for example, predict demand over time. A defining feature of the National
Aqueduct is that once enough water has been produced, the production
component only needs to resupply what has been consumed, allowing
desalination facilities to produce fresh water only as needed. Accurate modeling
allows water to be resupplied intelligently – knowing when water will be used at
what levels based on time of year allows us to address anticipated shortages
before they occur.
------------------
170
The Next Giant Leap
- Astro Teller
171
The Next Giant Leap
172
The Next Giant Leap
Best of all, as with CHP Plants, these systems can work together in a cogenerative
capacity, presenting additional benefits.
Surface area for solar panels. Universal Energy intends to deploy National
Aqueduct pipelines at the side of highways or under currently existing long-
distance power lines. That’s because this land is usually state-owned and doesn’t
need to be purchased, and also because it’s pre-cleared of obstructions. If you
recall from last chapter, water pipelines are designed to be installed in
prefabricated arrays, which boast relatively flat surfaces. So, what if we were to
cover their surface area with solar panels? The result, in the following image, is
the final intended form of National Aqueduct pipeline arrays:
173
The Next Giant Leap
Across the thousands of miles such pipeline arrays would span, integrating them
with solar panels stands to generate extremely high levels of electricity – far
beyond any single power plant.414 Alongside solar road networks and other
municipally integrated renewables, they can also help reinforce a redundant,
smart electric grid.
To see how, let's assume solar-enabled water transmission pipelines had a surface
width of 10 feet. Multiplied by a mile, that's 52,800 square feet. Going back to our
estimate of 30 kilowatt-hours annually generated per square foot, a one mile
stretch of solar-integrated pipelines would generate 1.58 million kilowatt-hours
per year – enough to power 150 homes. Keeping in mind that there are four
million miles of road surfaces in the United States,415 even fractional integration
would be sufficient to power tens of millions of homes. Total integration,
hypothetically, would annually generate 6.32 trillion kilowatt hours – nearly
twice our annual national energy consumption. And that’s just from one of three
power sources of the National Aqueduct.
Integration with wind turbines. Across the wide, open expanses of rural
America, wind power is especially effective. Placement in close proximity with
the National Aqueduct would enable a uniquely convenient source of
transmission and storage for the electricity they generate, that like other
municipal placement, avoids the need to buy expensive land.
174
The Next Giant Leap
Wind can assist the National Aqueduct in both electricity transmission and
thermoelectric battery functions. During peak demand, wind turbines integrated
throughout the National Aqueduct could directly power regional areas, as the
Aqueduct itself would effectively be a nationwide electric grid that could transmit
electricity at high efficiencies. Conversely, the energy they generate could be
diverted to water heating elements that keep the Aqueduct’s battery function at
maximum capacity. As the Aqueduct is a “smart” system that operates within a
modular, responsive framework, it would be able to respond to these needs
intelligently, making wind integration yet another force multiplier to the National
Aqueduct’s already multifaceted capabilities.
A company named Lucid Energy in Oregon is already doing this today through
modular turbine assemblies installed within prefabricated water pipes.416
175
The Next Giant Leap
176
The Next Giant Leap
Hydrothermal power. As water has one of the highest specific heats in nature,
once it gets hot, it stays hot for a long time.418 At the scale of billions of gallons,
water stays hot for an extremely long time – days, even weeks – all the more so if
the storage mediums are well-insulated.
One of the key functions of a CHP Plant is to keep water hot when it comes from
a Multistage Flash Distillation Facility, and in turn pump it into the National
Aqueduct hot. But as it travels over distance, the water will eventually cool.
To address this problem, we’ll need to rely on the National Aqueduct’s energy-
generating features. By using the excess energy generated by pipeline-mounted
solar arrays, wind turbines, and internal pipe turbines, we’ll have the energy
necessary to keep water hot throughout the entire Aqueduct. This is beneficial for
three important reasons:
First, water will reach its destination hot, sparing the energy needed to heat it
within residential and commercial hot water heaters. By virtue of the Aqueduct’s
control component, not all water would necessarily be delivered to residences at
high temperature, but it can arrive hot at any given time. This gives municipal
managers more flexibility in how they route water, as well as save significant
sums of money and energy on heating costs.
Second, keeping the water hot prevents it from freezing in pipelines during
winter months. Although the pipes would be insulated and resilient, a residual
amount of heat could be constantly emitted to melt snow covering solar panels,
allowing for electricity generation year-round.
Third, if the entire Aqueduct were heated, it would store a tremendous amount
of potential energy that could be converted into electricity,419 allowing it to
functionally act as a battery – the world’s largest by far.
177
The Next Giant Leap
Let’s say, for example, that we’ll store 500 billion gallons throughout the National
Aqueduct, and let’s say we heat that water to 200o F to maximize potential energy
storage. Using the worksheets provided by the helpful folks over at Engineering
Toolbox,422 we'll conclude that 1 gallon of water at 200 oF contains 1,660 BTU of
energy. Across 500 billion gallons, that comes to 830 trillion BTU, or 875.7 billion
megajoules.
Combined with the hydroelectric and solar functions of water pipeline arrays, it’s
feasible for the National Aqueduct to store enough potential energy to generate
trillions of kilowatt-hours over time. To put that in the proper scale, take another
look at the nationwide road map we saw earlier:
178
The Next Giant Leap
179
The Next Giant Leap
180
The Next Giant Leap
Clean water is a great example of something that depends on energy. And if you solve
the water problem, you solve the food problem.
- Richard Smalley
181
The Next Giant Leap
182
The Next Giant Leap
These systems can be built close to areas where food is consumed, which reduces
obstacles to transportation and delivery, especially within cities. Indoor farms can
also be climate controlled and operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year –
dramatically increasing output and efficiency compared to traditional farming.
Past obstacles to their deployment stemmed primarily from material and resource
costs,424 problems that Universal Energy substantially reduces.
With indoor farms, as long as there is water, light and heat, the location and
outside environment doesn’t matter. This allows food to be grown anywhere on
the planet at any time of year, with increased yield, higher efficiency, longer
growing seasons, and greater food security.
183
The Next Giant Leap
In this concept image of an indoor farming warehouse, water from storage tanks
is mixed with organic fertilizer made from excess plant matter grown within the
warehouse itself. This water is then pumped through the facility and dispersed
over plots of crops that grow under high-intensity lights. These crops can grow
on modular wheeled platforms that are easily moved, and the crops growing on
them can be manually pollinated as necessary.
What water isn’t absorbed by crops drains into a collection mechanism in the
floor, which sends the water to the bottom of the warehouse where it is filtered
and placed back into circulation. As we see today, the construction of large
warehouses at acceptable cost isn’t uncommon – take any Walmart, Target, Home
Depot or other big-box retailer, for example. These buildings are huge, often
encompassing a surface area into the hundreds of thousands of square feet.
Similar structures present promising opportunities for indoor farming.
If an indoor farming warehouse had dimensions of 600' per side, that comes to a
total surface area of 360,000 square feet (roughly 1/15th of the surface area of Tesla
Headquarters).425 Yet if the growing platforms were stacked, each subsequent
layer adds that same surface area to the aggregate total to become a force
multiplier. At five stacks, that warehouse now offers 1.8 million square feet of
184
The Next Giant Leap
growing space. At ten stacks, 3.6 million. At twenty stacks, 7.2 million. Building
two dozen of such warehouses, at twenty stacks each, would boast a total growing
surface of 172.8 million square feet. That’s 3,967 acres - some 6.2 square miles.
As these warehouses would operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, their
aggregate output could grow large enough to provide food for large metropolitan
areas – the capabilities of which would be limited only by the number of indoor
farm clusters. This setup is becoming more common, and is in use throughout
many of the indoor farms that have sprung up around the world today.
185
The Next Giant Leap
• Positive pressure. The indoor farm can be pressurized higher than the
outside area, so that when a door opens, indoor air blows out of the
building instead of outdoor air blowing in. Alongside worker sterilization
and air filtration mechanisms, this would limit the presence of
contaminants inside the farm.
• Active anti-pest measures. In the event that a pest did get in, we could
respond more surgically or with more benign pesticides. We wouldn’t
need to rely as strongly on more toxic treatments, because the pests they
combat would be less present in the first place.
186
The Next Giant Leap
It can also present major improvements to how we provide food aid, as global
anti-famine initiatives usually involve shipping food that’s already grown. With
indoor farms, the system itself can comprise the aid, allowing stressed regions to
grow their own produce by themselves. This concept is discussed further in the
“Collective Capitalism” section of the Appendix (page 295).
187
The Next Giant Leap
This also protects our food supply from pathogens. Genetically modified crops,
often with identical genomes, make up large swaths of our food supply –
comprising approximately 90% of soy and corn.434 Of the crops with identical
genetics, any self-replicating pathogen that could infect one plant could
188
The Next Giant Leap
Indoor farming can provide local and sustainable food production while
systematically avoiding most of the obstacles that exist in agriculture today. But
beyond indoor growth in warehouses, we can integrate indoor farms directly
within urban environments – not only to supplement food production, but also
to serve as centerpieces for more advanced cities with next-generation
infrastructure.
Since the end of World War II, American agriculture has increasingly represented
a centralized model where the majority of food is grown in one large region (the
“American Breadbasket”) and shipped elsewhere for processing and distribution.
This has led to logistical challenges that indoor farms are designed to address, but
providing a framework for climate-controlled indoor farming is only the first
step. The next is urban vertical farming.
An urban vertical farm doesn’t use a flat plot of land or a large warehouse, but
instead floors of city buildings that have been either built or modified for farming.
This approach has existed in varied forms for millennia (the hanging gardens of
Babylon perhaps most famous of them) and has been used in Europe since the
1850s.436 Today, urban vertical farms are being constructed in London, Chicago,
Milan and Newark, with future farms planned in several other cities.437
In the past, the feasibility of vertical farming has been limited by constraints
inherent to resource scarcity, namely the cost of energy and materials.438 With the
implementation of Universal Energy, these constraints would no longer be
present in force, reducing the limitations to building large-scale urban vertical
farms. The following concept images illustrate further.
189
The Next Giant Leap
At first glance, these systems might appear somewhat futuristic, but from an
architectural or engineering standpoint, these designs present few challenges that
have not been solved already in other industries with today’s technology. They
are well within the realm of feasibility, especially if energy costs and material
limitations are removed from the equation. Even so, the following images show
urban vertical farms that are already operating around the world today:
190
The Next Giant Leap
191
The Next Giant Leap
Further, urban vertical farms have additional benefits that cannot be provided by
warehouse-style indoor farms, making them especially attractive for cities with
higher population densities. These include:
Smarter food production. While indoor farms may grow more crops at the size
of a warehouse, urban vertical farms can still provide a major boost to food
production. As urban vertical farms would exist directly within city centers, it
effectively zeroes out the distance between production and consumption. In
doing this, vertical farms redefine the notion of “farm to table,” as they would be
within short distance of the millions of people they could provide food for.
This said, it’s noteworthy that food production isn’t the only application for
vertical farming, as plants provide more value than just consumption. For
example:
Soil is a great insulator. The idea of placing greenhouses on rooftops has been
around for some time, and one of the most attractive supplementary benefits of
doing so is their insulation potential. As hot air rises through a building, it escapes
through the roof, which increases energy costs. Acting like a blanket, rooftop
greenhouses work to keep as much energy as possible within a given building.
This concept has already been applied in Italy with the Bosco Verticale towers in
Milan, which were completed in 2015.439
192
The Next Giant Leap
Several cities have applied this concept further into law. New York City, for
example, recently passed legislation requiring green roofs on new buildings
within its jurisdiction.440 Denver, Portland, San Francisco and Chicago have
enacted similar measures to establish green rooftops for urban air purification
and temperature control of buildings.441
Plants are air purifiers. Plants are highly effective in scrubbing air of impurities
and contaminants, which are often concentrated in cities. Large-scale urban
agriculture through vertical farms can act as a massive, constant air filtration
system. As allergies and respiratory ailments have been on the rise, this can
provide a boost to public health both physically and mentally.442
Indoor parks and greener cities are socially beneficial. Regardless of how far we
have come in terms of technological advancement, connection to nature is
important for human happiness, lower stress levels, higher productivity, and
positive life outlook. For those of us who live in cities, disconnection from nature
can sow the seeds of depression, and depression is a social toxin. But could you
imagine how much less stressful life would be if you could just take an elevator
193
The Next Giant Leap
to the roof of your office building and hang out in a tropical park for 30 minutes
on your lunch break? Or walk off a city street into a large indoor park where it
was bright, colorful and warm?
Daily exposure to nature, however short, can make a major difference, which not
only leads to a happier and healthier society, but also improves collective hope,
and thus the collective drive to seek, build, and accomplish greater things. And
as real estate for public parks faces high costs in cities, devoting floors of a
building to a welcoming public hangout can significantly lower expenses for the
same deliverable – especially if the park is on the roof of a building.
For example, instead of growing corn or soy, farmers could instead grow:
Algae for biofuel or plastics. The rising price of petroleum over the past 15 years
– at least until the discovery of easier shale oil extraction – has led to a surge of
investment in biofuels.445 Biofuels are hydrocarbons that come from living plants,
as opposed to oil that comes from fossilized plant remains. Even though
Universal Energy would promote hydrogen as the nationwide fuel standard,
biofuels and existing petroleum reserves can be devoted to a more appropriate
purpose: advanced materials. Today, we use corn ethanol to make plastics,446 but
corn is not the most effective crop we have at our disposal.
Several forms of algae have properties that allow for hydrocarbon production.
The biofuel company Algenol claims that with today’s technology it can produce
194
The Next Giant Leap
thousands of gallons of ethanol per acre of growing space, and we could increase
that output with Universal Energy.447 Further, since the energy and materials
industries tend to be more profitable than the food industry, what money might
be lost from a move to indoor food production could then be replaced – with
profits gained – from the shift to growing hydrocarbon-producing algae.
For comparison, the Department of Energy estimates that if we were to use algae
to replace petroleum in all respects in the United States, we would need an area
of about 15,000 square miles (roughly the size of Massachusetts and Connecticut
combined).448 That’s less than 1/7th of the space we use for corn, meaning if we
were to move much of our food production indoors, we would have ample space
to grow algae – and plenty of economic dividends for farmers to go along with it.
Algae for supplemental nutrition. Beyond uses in plastics and materials, algae
can also be grown for added nutritional value in food products. The species
chlorella, in particular, is among the most promising candidates.
195
The Next Giant Leap
something grows in sunlight), gives chlorella one of the highest protein yields of
any crop.450 That’s why, after World War II, chlorella was considered as a solution
to the then-global food crisis.451 At the time, chlorella was difficult to grow outside
of laboratories, but with advances in technology post-1950 – and the added
benefits Universal Energy provides – we have the ability to grow a potent
nutritional supplement that can be used to enhance any segment of the food
supply. One that, just as importantly, can also provide supplemental nutrition in
remote or isolated locations.
People have been genetically engineering plants for millennia through splicing,
cross breeding, and human (as opposed to natural) selection. We were modifying
genomes then, we just weren’t doing it under a microscope. It’s what we do to a
plant, and our guiding ethical standards when we do it, that ultimately matters.
So, what if we instead extended the genetic modification of plants to a different
focus? For example:
196
The Next Giant Leap
Inclusion of bacteria. Algae isn’t the only organism that can produce
hydrocarbons. Scientists in several countries have successfully modified the
genetics of E. coli bacteria to produce diesel fuel that is nearly identical to the
diesel derived from petroleum458 – and, in theory, genetic modification could help
us produce other hydrocarbons synthetically,459 as well as accelerate the disposal
of their plastic derivatives.460
What’s Next?
Yet the tools that make it possible have a secondary, vital function through the
provision of the building blocks of next-generation synthetic materials. And that,
once delivered, is the final piece we need to evolve beyond a zero-sum resource
paradigm, and the final piece we need to build our civilization upward to ever-
greater heights.
197
The Next Giant Leap
198
The Next Giant Leap
The next episode of 3D printing will involve printing entirely new kinds of materials.
Eventually we will print complete products – circuits, motors and batteries all included.
At that point, all bets are off.
- Hod Lipson
199
The Next Giant Leap
200
The Next Giant Leap
Advanced Synthetics
Yet plastics have problems. For one, they don’t biodegrade well and they can’t be
easily recycled. Consequently – once we’re done with them, they’re stuffed in
landfills, or worse, end up in our oceans at severe environmental impact.461
201
The Next Giant Leap
Additionally, plastics that can be recycled at all have a low “percent yield,” which
is the amount of final material produced from the original supply material.462 That
means it might take 10 lbs. of source material to make 1 lb. of plastic, which is too
inefficient to be viable on a large scale – especially if the 9 lbs. of material lost as
waste is environmentally toxic.463 We’ve made progress towards solving this
problem, but making plastics that have both a high percent yield and are easily
recyclable has proven challenging. Recent advances, however, have made
reaching this goal more feasible.
The first of these advances is the one that’s made Universal Energy possible to
begin with: sophisticated computing. Since computers became prevalent in
industrial and research settings, their performance has increased at a truly
exponential rate. Today, they’re millions of times more powerful than they were
in their first iterations.464 And faster computers – especially boosted by artificial
intelligence (A.I.)465 and machine learning466 – can help chemical engineers create
models to manufacture ever-better synthetic materials.
This becomes all the more possible through quantum computing, a potentially
revolutionary method that uses quantum physics to dramatically increase
processing speed.467 Computers today can only process one calculation at a time,
whereas quantum computers could, in theory, process millions of calculations
simultaneously.468 While still in its infancy, computer scientists estimate quantum
computing could surpass traditional computing as early as 2021,469 presenting
even stronger implications for the future performance of A.I.
202
The Next Giant Leap
use to manipulate those chemicals into plastics and other synthetics that meet
demanding performance requirements.473
We’re already on our way to realizing that future, even with current technology
and material limitations. Consider a list of some standouts on the market today:
203
The Next Giant Leap
This strength allows synthetic wood to potentially replace traditional wood in the
construction of houses, buildings, bridges – anything, really. Cost presently
remains a limiting factor, but in a world powered by effectively unlimited cheap
energy – and with abundant resources – these costs would likely fall substantially,
allowing for an indefinite supply of yet another building material.
204
The Next Giant Leap
However, the other two components – source materials and heat energy – have
been more elusive, or, at least, more expensive. But we’ve accomplished much
with the technology we have today. Researchers have developed new superalloys
that push the boundaries of strength-to-weight ratios,481 new steels as strong as
titanium482 and specialized alloys that can increase the safety and performance of
nuclear reactors.483 A world powered by nigh-unlimited cheap energy and an
abundant supply of source materials only stands to accelerate this even further,
with improved quality control and more-precise manufacturing following suit.
----------
Although they are samples from a far longer list, these materials are all
commercially available as you read this. Each stands to further benefit from the
future performance improvements provided by subsequent technological
innovation. Yet as impressive as they are, they each ultimately bow in honor of
another synthetic material. One that, by itself alone, carries unrivaled potential to
revolutionize our way of life. That material is graphene.
205
The Next Giant Leap
as one of the lightest.484 It’s also highly resistant to both corrosion and heat,
with a melting point in excess of 8,132°F (4,500°C). During a 2008 interview
with graphene’s inventor, Professor of Engineering John Home at Columbia
University, he remarked:
“Our research establishes graphene as the strongest material ever measured, some
200 times stronger than structural steel. It would take an elephant, balanced on a
pencil, to break through graphene the thickness of Saran Wrap.”
The combination of these three traits make graphene useful for a wide array of
applications that serve critical roles in our society.
They include:
206
The Next Giant Leap
Electronics made with graphene can also store large amounts of data in small
physical spaces.486 The following images show a concept for a new type of jump
drive that works like sticky post-it notes,487 which while not currently in
production are well within the realm of technical feasibility.
Graphene’s conductivity also gives it high capacities for data transfer, some
7,000% faster than today’s commercial methods.488 Researchers have conducted
experiments that show graphene antennas can transmit data at speeds of up to
100 terabytes a second.489 To contextualize, a high-definition feature-length film
generally ranges from 3-9 gigabytes in size. There are 1,000 gigabytes in a
terabyte. Assuming an average size of 6 gigabytes, this translates to a transfer
capacity of approximately 166 high-definition films per-second.
Medicine. High strength and conductivity with low weight and reactivity gives
graphene excellent potential for medical applications.490 Uses include stents to
prevent arterial restriction, high strength and lightweight casts for injuries and
providing the physical scaffolding to help paralyzed people walk again.
207
The Next Giant Leap
Because it’s so thin and conductive, graphene can form “supercapacitors” that can
function at equal to even superior levels than high-performance lithium-ion
batteries.492 These supercapacitors are made by layering sheets of graphene
between an electrolyte that’s then encased in non-conductive plastic. The
following two images show a theoretical cross-section of a graphene capacitor and
a real-world prototype of such a capacitor, respectively.
But these prototypes reflect the relatively new emergence of graphene research.
As graphene can be made microscopically thin (theoretically to the scale of an
atom), advances in manufacturing can eventually enable us to drastically increase
the potential surface area of graphene used for direct energy storage.
208
The Next Giant Leap
It’s not uncommon for a standard car battery to have a width and depth similar
to a sheet of printer paper. If we were to assume a height of ten inches, we could
layer as many as 250,000 graphene sheets in that same volume. At 8.5x11”, a sheet
of printer paper has a surface area of about 0.65 square feet. At 250,000 sheets
strong, that would amount to a total of 162,500 square feet. A football field, for
comparison (including end zones) has a surface area of 57,600 square feet.495 That
means this graphene box would contain the equivalent surface area of 2.5 football
fields, yet compacted to the size of a car battery – and made with flexible, non-
toxic materials that are 600 times lighter than structural steel and 200 times
stronger.
Consequently, it can transform the way we build things. Take the electric car for
instance.
Instead of an electric car storing packs of heavy batteries, the car’s chassis can be
interwoven layers of graphene and can itself be the energy storage medium.
When you think of the 162,500 square feet of surface area that could be potentially
stored within the size of a car battery, an entire vehicle chassis is a subsequently
higher order. We could potentially reach points where we could interweave
millions of square feet of energy storage medium within a single electric vehicle
– increasing range, reliability and structural integrity at far less weight.
209
The Next Giant Leap
Graphene enables us to wield strength, flexibility in form, and energy storage all
at once, each potentially at a higher degree of performance than we can manage
with leading commercial solutions today. Tomorrow’s skyscrapers, bridges,
public infrastructure, transportation systems – each can also serve as electricity
storage. And through Universal Energy’s core offerings of electricity, fuel and
heat, we have the means to synthesize graphene and other revolutionary
materials easier and at less expense than we can today.
While this is key to a clean energy future, making materials is only one part of the
equation. Whatever we construct must in turn be recycled or disposed of in an
end-of-life cycle. The framework accounts for this through several approaches on
both land – and sea – that can present major environmental improvements.
Technology has brought us the litany of conveniences that define our modern era,
yet these conveniences have come with a massive waste footprint – a problem that
has proven deeply challenging to manage. We’ve taken several approaches to
process our immense volumes of trash: burying it in landfills, attempting to
recycle old materials into new materials, “downcycling” waste into usable
products (such as making park benches from shredded plastic bottles), or simply
burning it. But none have truly succeeded in managing this issue on a global scale.
Universal Energy intends to change that. While it’s true that a goal of the
framework is improving our ability to recycle things like plastics from the design
stage, recycling complex polymers is inherently difficult. And when we consider
the extent of waste across the globe, the problem seems daunting, no matter how
sophisticated our technology becomes.
210
The Next Giant Leap
Worse, even while advances in recycling certain materials show promise, and
getting rid of single-use plastic products is a laudable goal, each ultimately does
little to turn the tide of our global waste accumulation.498 The solution to this
problem must be massive and immediate, effective and achievable – and all on a
planetary scale. There presently aren’t many technologies that can meet these
requirements, but one called plasma gasification can.499
211
The Next Giant Leap
212
The Next Giant Leap
Table source.503
213
The Next Giant Leap
Each major ocean has a large accumulation of trash within primary ocean currents
(referred to as “gyres.”)504 The picture above outlines the “great pacific garbage
patch,” one of five worldwide.
214
The Next Giant Leap
Worse, waste from these massive piles is continually decomposing into smaller
pieces – and these smaller pieces are being consumed by marine life. This poisons
the creatures it doesn't kill, which eventually makes its way into humans when
we eat seafood. Currently, some 3.2 billion people rely on seafood for almost 20
percent of their animal protein intake.505
Science and industry are aware of this problem and have invented promising
tools to help reverse course. The Ocean Cleanup Project, for instance, recently
launched a gigantic sieve consisting of floating pipes and netting that corrals trash
into a U-shape for future processing.506 In concept, several of these sieves would
float with ocean currents to slowly accumulate trash over time, with the hope of
eventually cleaning up marine environments completely.
215
The Next Giant Leap
But that step of “accumulation” presents another important question. Once the
trash is corralled, what do we do with it? And how does cleaning up ocean trash
in one place prevent it from being reintroduced to marine environments
elsewhere? Universal Energy’s answer to this question is something called a
“Trident Facility.”
A Trident Facility is built like an offshore oil rig – a large floating facility that can
navigate any ocean in the world. Yet instead of drilling for oil, it would both
synthetically produce resources and dispose of ocean trash cleanly and safely.
A cooperating series of Trident Facilities would scour the oceans and suck
in trash from one of their four floating legs or a central lift. Ideally, these
would work in conjunction with floating trash collectors like those from
the Ocean Cleanup Project. From there, trash would be processed via a
plasma gasifier to become syngas or the slag that can be turned into useful
materials.
216
The Next Giant Leap
2. The excess energy generated from the LFTR and the plasma gasifier would
be further used to extract fresh water and hydrogen fuel from seawater,
just as with CHP Plants. This could be used to resupply large ships on-
demand, enabling Trident Facilities to serve as minature ports or
emergency safe havens.
Trident facilities earn their namesake because they perform three unique roles:
ocean cleanup, resource production and atmospheric scrubbing: three points of
Poseidon’s trident. They enable us to work to eradicate ocean trash, while using
the byproducts to make useful materials. This helps us come ever closer to the
material revolution Universal Energy seeks to make the new normal.
217
The Next Giant Leap
218
The Next Giant Leap
----------
2. With Universal Energy, we can dispose of waste and recycle products easier
and at far greater scale than we can at present.
219
The Next Giant Leap
3. With goals #1 and #2 met, we can now design systems and products to
eventually be disassembled, repurposed, and/or upgraded – turning products
into long-term investments instead of one-use discardables.
220
The Next Giant Leap
Like 3D metal printing, these shapes can reflect practically any attribute that can
be envisioned on any axis, and be either solid, hollow, or solid with embedded
pathways for isolated fluids.
221
The Next Giant Leap
222
The Next Giant Leap
Without question, the sophistication and precision of these capabilities raises the
bar of our manufacturing prowess to uncharted heights. Yet because their
deliverables can now also be manufactured as iterative models at the push of a
button – and can also further be built using the strongest and most resilient
materials presently available – these advances can be integrated into any aspect of a
modular, standardized and scalable manufacturing chain.
223
The Next Giant Leap
Combined, this changes the game completely – all the more so since these
technologies are in their infancy and stand to advance over time with
proportionally higher sophistication and proportionally reduced costs. It’s the
last piece of the puzzle that we require to build whatever we could need or want.
When backed by a technical framework that provides effectively unlimited
energy and critical resources by design, this enables us to extend that capability
to any social sector we could imagine. And that, in sum, allows us to land the final
blow to defeat resource scarcity outright.
224
The Next Giant Leap
When I think about creating abundance, it's not about creating a life of luxury for
everybody on this planet; it's about creating a life of possibility. It is about taking that
which was scarce and making it abundant.
- Peter Diamandis
225
The Next Giant Leap
226
The Next Giant Leap
We saw earlier how most power plants are built as unique entities – they might
standardize a doorway, railing or stairwell, but the system as a whole is
essentially made to order. The same is true with most larger-scale things in our
society. With few exceptions, every bridge built, tunnel dug, railway laid or
building erected was done so as a custom entity – made to order, each and every
time. This is because we are presently living in a world with technical limitations
that would make it difficult to build something like a skyscraper or bridge on a
factory assembly line. Removing this limitation is one of the final functions
Universal Energy is intended to perform.
With a nigh-unlimited supply of all critical resources – especially energy, fuel and
materials – we have the building blocks to build as much as we want, however
we want. As we further have sophisticated computing and modeling, next-
generation manufacturing with advanced synthetics and precise tolerances, we
can automate the construction of sophisticated systems on a larger scale.
227
The Next Giant Leap
This house was not constructed at this location, it was assembled here. There were
no workers on-site cutting wood for framing or nailing in subfloors. Pieces of this
house were built on a factory assembly line, just like we build vehicles. They were
delivered by a truck to a construction site, and this house was assembled in a
matter of days.
This house came with a finished interior, with all electrical, plumbing and heating
elements pre-installed. Should the homeowners decide one day that they want to
expand the size of their home, it would be a matter of bringing in a new piece,
removing modular components from the original house, and fastening the new
piece into the whole. If they wanted to move, they could disassemble their house,
put it on trucks, and assemble it again somewhere else. Essentially, we can now
build houses with life-sized Legos.
228
The Next Giant Leap
But this price range includes expenses inherent to any fledgling industry – initial
research and development, prototyping, and marketing among them – and those
costs have to be recouped through fewer sales in a smaller-if-growing market. The
energy and materials needed to both construct and transport these prefabricated
homes are also a considerable expense. Universal Energy helps to mitigate these
cost factors, and with future advances in synthetic materials, the total cost of these
houses could drop significantly.
229
The Next Giant Leap
For comparison: both of these feats were accomplished faster than the time it takes
Budweiser to brew a bottle of beer.522
These achievements were accomplished with today’s technology. With the energy
cost reductions and improvements to both manufacturing and materials
Universal Energy brings, the possibilities expand. We can sustainably
prefabricate advanced systems on massive scales, and we can build things better
230
The Next Giant Leap
and less expensively than we can today. This enables us to dramatically advance
our economy, society and infrastructure. But we can also ensure shelter as a
resource – which brings us back to housing. At this scale of manufacturing
prowess, building small residences on assembly lines becomes trivial.
For example, the images below show houses made from shipping containers – the
same kind used to transport goods on trucks and cargo ships. Shipping containers
are so inexpensive to make that in some cases, it’s actually cheaper to use new
containers than it is to ship the empty ones back to their origin.523 Thousands of
containers nationwide are routinely left near shipping yards, prompting
innovative architects to use them as housing:
231
The Next Giant Leap
Shipping containers are plentiful and, naturally, easy to transport. Each container
is made from steel, which is extremely resilient and boasts a high load strength.
With today’s energy, shipping, and manufacturing costs, a single-container home
can be delivered for between $20,000-$40,000.524 The last home on the previous
page, for example, was fully constructed for less than $40,000.525 If energy and
material expense reductions are applied by way of Universal Energy, these costs
would likely drop substantially.
Shipping containers are far from our only prefabricated housing option. U.S. tech
startup ICON, for example, can prefabricate a 650-square-foot house in less than
24 hours at a cost of $10,000 or less.526 They use a large 3D printer to pour a
concrete mix layer by layer, creating a solid structure that’s significantly stronger
than traditional stick-framed construction. The company has already built more
than 800 homes in partnership with local communities in Bolivia, Mexico, Haiti,
and El Salvador.527 In developing nations, the company estimates homes like the
ones below could be manufactured for less than $4,000.528 ICON’s market sector
is shared by companies in Russia,529 Dubai530 and Amsterdam that manufacture
comparable models.531
The MADi corporation in Italy has taken a different approach, using folding joints
to create small residences that can be set up in hours.
232
The Next Giant Leap
But what are the greater implications of the expansion of materials and
construction methods for smaller-scale residential dwelling? Most importantly,
for a modest investment we can now provide quality living spaces for anyone
who needs a home, such as:
While temporary FEMA trailers have granted some relief in the U.S., these
shelters are only free to use for a limited time, and at $70,000 per unit, each costs
233
The Next Giant Leap
For example, during the 2010 Haiti Earthquake and its aftermath, roughly 105,000
homes were destroyed and another 208,000 badly damaged.534 International
governments devoted millions of dollars to assist, with some $93 million going to
build some 2,600 homes – a cost of roughly $36,000 a house. Though
approximately $13 billion in total international aid was donated so that Haiti
could rebuild, much of the country today looks little different from how it did in
the immediate aftermath of the earthquake.535 Had we been able to purchase 2,600
prefabricated homes at $30,000 each, it would have cost $9.3 billion – meaning
that we’d have provided living spaces to replace every destroyed home with
another $3.7 billion to spare.
Perhaps a family can’t afford to buy a house and are forced to rent at the expense
of their ability to save money or invest in something they own. Conversely,
perhaps a family wishes to purchase a modest home on a larger plot of land with
more cash on hand as opposed to a more expensive house with a heavier
mortgage. Prefabricated homes make either possible, allowing people to take
advantage of the value of home ownership at lower prices than are possible today.
234
The Next Giant Leap
preventing homelessness every 2-5 years. Also of note: that’s between 1-3% of the
annual defense budget.540
It’s worth mentioning that providing a private living space to get people off the
streets isn’t necessarily going to fix any underlying reasons for their
homelessness, as afflictions like drug addiction and mental illness are often
factors.541 But reaching the ability to extend the most vulnerable among us a place
to live and rebuild their lives is key to solving major social problems. The lowest
a person in the United States (and perhaps abroad) would thus be able to fall is a
private living space with heat, food and hot water – a historical first.
Since we evolved from hunter-gatherer tribes and started building societies, the
environment around us has paid the price. We have razed forests, destroyed
ecosystems and altered our planet’s climate. The rise of human civilization, in and
of itself, has been an extinction-level event. Universal Energy allows us to chart a
different course because it can provide every resource that we need to exist and
advance without relying on perpetually invasive extractive technologies. This
alone greatly reduces the damage we inflict on nature by decreasing our reliance
on what are essentially finite resources.
It’s true that technological advances might increase the extraction of certain
materials. But with superior recycling and manufacturing methods, this can be
minimized – and would ultimately pale in comparison to the other environmental
benefits we would see with Universal Energy. We would no longer need to cut
235
The Next Giant Leap
down forests for building materials, extract finite sources of oil and gas for
energy, or devote swaths of land for farming. We would no longer need to deplete
natural water sources for drinking, industry, or agriculture. We would no longer
need to pollute our atmosphere or destroy waterways with toxic chemicals. Over
time, the Universal Energy framework would allow nature to return to its natural
state, and heal to a point before our hands scarred it.
For thousands of years, for thousands, we have butchered each other. Whether
by the sword, the arrow, the bullet or the bomb, we have exterminated our
brethren in every horrific manner we could think of. In this doing we have told
ourselves lies, and allowed ourselves to believe that we were justified in killing
and dying by the millions for causes that boiled down to nothing more than
resource scarcity and the pursuit of the money, power and economic might it
bestows on the winner of its zero-sum games. We have believed these lies and
lived with these horrors because we thought we had no other choice. And
whether near or far from the results of their manifestation, we have been
powerless to prevent it all from repeating for time eternal because we had no
means to truly change how the world worked.
Now, we do.
Paradigm Shift
Universal Energy is first and foremost a framework, and its ultimate purpose is
to make a new model for our society. It doesn’t seek to use money to pay for social
programs that mitigate social problems. It instead seeks to use money to build
systems that make those problems irrelevant.
236
The Next Giant Leap
10,000 years ago, making fire was a problem. Today, you use a lighter. 300 years
ago, transportation over distance was a problem. Today, you hop in a car, bus,
train, or plane. 100 years ago, communication was a problem. Today, a phone call
can reach any corner of the globe. Right now, today, energy and resources are a
problem. Through technology, they don’t have to be a problem tomorrow.
For millennia, resource scarcity has been central to human interaction, chaining
and binding us to its restrictions. With its bounds removed, we can focus the
entirety of our social strength towards transforming our civilization into
something unprecedented.
A future worth having. That is what we strove for once, and it’s something we
can strive for again. Yet in order to do so we must recapture the vision we once
lost, a vision we once cherished: the drive to build great and amazing things.
Minus the shiny new weapons systems that consume trillions of dollars decade
in, decade out, that collective drive has been forsaken.
The past six decades saw us build the interstate highway system, put a man on
the moon and invent GPS and the internet. We didn’t care about difficulty or
political opposition – we achieved those goals because we could and because they
proved to ourselves that we were worthy of rising to the occasion as both a people
and a species.
237
The Next Giant Leap
Today, amidst the backdrop of our crumbling roads, collapsing bridges and aging
skyscrapers, we are living within a decaying testament to the greatness we once
sought and collectively built. And we’ve lowered ourselves to bickering, bitterly,
over ideological squabbles and petty partisanship about how we’re going to build
anything of actual societal value, for ourselves, for those who will come after, and
for those who once looked to us as models to follow.
That is not who we are, and that is not where we came from. We deserve a better
future than Ozymandias, and Universal Energy is how we may see it realized. We
can see it realized because the framework has a tertiary function that becomes
possible when we move past a finite-resource dynamic. Once we stop chasing our
tails and wasting untold blood and treasure in the name of resource dominance,
it allows us to devote our full strength as a civilization to advance ourselves even
further to a new stage of technological and humanitarian evolution – one that
ultimately sees us build a world we thought possible only in dreams.
238
The Next Giant Leap
- Jim Rohn
239
The Next Giant Leap
240
The Next Giant Leap
Up until now, this writing has primarily focused on the technologies Universal
Energy proposes to solve resource scarcity. The reason for this is unambiguous:
resource scarcity is the core human malady. It’s the primary cause of large-scale
conflict, the major driver of environmental destruction and climate change, and
both the facilitator and accelerant of economic decline, poverty and state-level
enmity. Scarcity has been a determining factor in our existence since civilization
became civilization. It’s solution, therefore, is the central factor in determining our
evolution beyond the dynamic that’s limited us from that time-onward.
The question thus becomes: what happens once we reach that zenith?
This cyclical effect has the potential to reshape our future and improve our quality
of life on a scale unrivaled. This goes beyond thinking bigger and building larger.
The very foundations of our civilization will be on a trajectory of collective ascent
to heights that were never before possible until we reached this threshold.
To put that statement in perspective, recall that humanity has existed for about
200,000 years, although some estimates say it’s as long as 300,000.542 For 95% of
that timeline, we were basically cavemen. If we characterize “actual” civilization
as the start of the Bronze Age, that period started only 5,000 years ago. From the
year 200,000 B.C.E. until the mid-1800s, the fastest a human could travel was on
horseback. Yet by the start of the 20th century we had the train, automobile and
aircraft, and we landed on the moon less than 70 years later. The light bulb,
241
The Next Giant Leap
Civil Engineering
Social infrastructure – what we can build, how we build it and how long it lasts –
makes our society possible, and beyond that, makes it enduring and inspiring.
Universal Energy can revolutionize our recently-neglected social infrastructure to
great social benefit by allowing public works projects to complete faster, less
expensively and on larger scales.
You’ll recall that repairing the decaying infrastructure across our nation is
expected to cost several trillions of dollars with today’s methods – even in the
most conservative estimates.543 These are repairs that need to be made, yet we have
neither the earmarked funds nor the political willpower to pay for them.
However, as with energy and resources, technology provides an opportunity to
solve the problem for us by leapfrogging limitations cost-effectively.
242
The Next Giant Leap
Once computer modelling, 3D printing, and factory prefabrication are added in,
however, is when we truly start building the future. These technologies have been
around for only the past decade, meaning that the majority of structures in our
society were built without the aid of computers, and anything built before the late
1970s didn’t even involve a calculator. Today, architectural software allows us to
design structures virtually on computers. This provides engineers with 3D
representations of what they’re constructing along with highly accurate
predictions of material requirements and limits of load and scale. The following
images, for example, respectively show a bridge being designed on a computer
and another being 3D printed in real time:
243
The Next Giant Leap
Considering that many of these technologies are in their infancy with regards to
civil infrastructure, there is ample room for them to grow in the future.
Integrating improvements in material science, nigh-unlimited energy and
resources, and design-first principles of standardization and modularity only
stand to serve as accelerants. We previously saw how we can embrace these
advances to build houses, buildings and prefabricated systems, but this concept
applies to the manufacture of practically anything on a large scale.
If we can prefabricate jetliners and LFTRs, why not bridges, tunnels, apartment
buildings, and skyscrapers? Aerospace-grade engineering carries the highest
requirements for reliability in the world, and today we already can completely
assemble a flagship jetliner every nine business days – or 3D print sophisticated
components for the same in a matter of hours. A world powered by Universal
Energy grants us the means to raise the bar higher still.
Yet in many ways, such infrastructure is only as useful as its ability to overcome
obstacles in the landscape, something made possible through bridges and tunnels
244
The Next Giant Leap
• While not the longest bridge in the United States, at 4.8 miles the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge is one of the most important, as it connects Delaware and
Maryland’s Eastern Shore with the Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area.
Roughly 25.6 million vehicles travel on it every year, each one saving time and
fuel that would be devoted to longer routes should the bridge not exist.547
How much time and fuel? Assuming each of these 25.6 million vehicles
traveled between Washington, DC and Dover, Delaware, they need drive only
93 miles for 1.8 hours if they use the bridge. If not, they would need to drive
134 miles for 2.75 hours via I-95.548 This means that over the past 10 years,
assuming consistent traffic and 21 miles per gallon fuel economy, the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge has collectively saved motorists a total of one billion
miles of driving distance, 224.3 million hours (2,776 years) of driving time,
and roughly 500 million gallons of fuel.
• The Colorado I-70 corridor splits the Rocky Mountains with a highway,
allowing motorists to avoid slow and often precarious mountain passes. The
corridor is made possible through the 1.7-mile-long Eisenhower-Johnson
tunnel, which was completed in 1979. It takes approximately four hours on I-
70 to travel the 235 miles from Denver to Grand Junction on opposite sides of
the Continental Divide. Without the corridor, it would take approximately 8.6
hours549 to travel the 432 miles via U.S. Route 40.550
To put those numbers in perspective, the highway and tunnel has saved each
vehicle 4.6 hours of driving time and a driving distance of 197 miles. As
roughly 13 million vehicles travel through the tunnel annually,551 we’ll
conservatively assume that from 1979 to 2018 a total of 400 million vehicles
have traveled this route to Grand Junction. At an assumed average fuel
economy of 21 miles per gallon, this tunnel system has collectively saved
drivers 79 billion miles of driving distance, 1.8 billion hours (210,000 years) of
driving time, and 3.7 billion gallons of fuel.
Under those assumptions, these two public works projects, alone, have
collectively saved motorists a total of 80 billion miles of driving distance, 213,000
years of driving time, and 4.2 billion gallons of fuel.
245
The Next Giant Leap
Both the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and the Colorado I-70 corridor were built with
technology from the 1950s-1980s – a far cry from what we have available today,
which in itself is a far cry from the capabilities we would have with Universal
Energy. Under the framework, we would be able to increase the scale of our
bridges and tunnels – connecting places in ways that were never before possible.
Megabridges have already made their debut on the world stage. The above
concept images respectively show the proposed Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link,552
connecting Germany and Denmark, and the Sheikh Rashid bin Saeed
Crossing megabridge in Dubai.553 The image below shows the recently completed
Zhuhai-Macau Megabridge connecting mainland China to the island of Macau:
246
The Next Giant Leap
As impressive as they are, neither of these projects can yet utilize large-scale
factory prefabrication with next-generation synthetics, meaning they are
ultimately constructed ad-hoc with less advanced material options than would be
possible with Universal Energy. Future megabridges can avoid these constraints.
Imagine if construction crews didn’t need to pour concrete, lay cable, steamroll
asphalt or spot-weld junctions by hand, each and every time? What if they instead
could take prefabricated pylons, platforms, support arches and integrated
renewables, and assemble the entire bridge like a hobby kit, just on a larger scale?
247
The Next Giant Leap
248
The Next Giant Leap
249
The Next Giant Leap
Prefabricated buildings. We’ve thus far talked at length about the concepts of
prefabrication and 3D printing, with attention to how we can use them to build
advanced systems quicker, better, and with less expense. Megatunnels and
megabridges are good examples of how we can apply these concepts to larger-
scale infrastructure, but there are also other promising applications – such as
250
The Next Giant Leap
This apartment complex in Kansas City features 80 modular units that was finish-
assembled on-site within four months:562
251
The Next Giant Leap
For comparison, the average time to construct a single-family home in the United
States is between 6-11 months, once a building permit is issued.563 Prefabricated
structures such as these are attractive options for reducing housing shortages, a
problem that is expected to increase as large numbers of people continue to
migrate to cities.564
Prefabrication also works on even larger scales. We saw in Chapter Eleven how
China’s Broad Sustainable Buildings corporation assembled a 30-story tower in
15 days. But that’s only a pioneering example of the potential of prefabricated
structures. The company has since outdone themselves by building a 57-story
skyscraper in nineteen days, which, at three stories per day, is 33% faster than
their previous performance. Named “J57 Mini Sky City,” the structure is one of
the tallest modular buildings in the world.
Back in the United States, Skanska, a Swedish construction company, has recently
completed “461 Dean,” a 363-unit apartment building in downtown Brooklyn.
The 32-story building, completed in approximately 18 months, saved 20% on
construction costs when compared to traditional building methods.565
These cost savings are then passed on to prospective tenants, as the studio units
in this building start at $560/month in a neighborhood where the median rent is
roughly $2,700.566
252
The Next Giant Leap
When we consider the reduced costs and shorter construction timelines on these
buildings, it’s important to be mindful that they represent the first variants of this
emerging technology. Further, these feats of engineering are also performed with
today’s technology and material limitations. If we think about how far we've
come in other areas over just the last 20-30 years, there's no telling how much
more advanced this type of construction can become in the future – especially if
the advances of Universal Energy were incorporated.
Supercities
As cities have evolved, they have expanded in population and sprawl, drawing
in people by the billions to their economies, amenities and culture. Modern
technological advancements in infrastructure, however, didn’t exist until the
253
The Next Giant Leap
early-to mid-1900s, even in affluent areas. Today, even the most modest city
dwellings have amenities such as running water, plumbing and electricity, as well
as means of transportation and communication that would have been
unthinkable for the past 99.99% of human existence. Further advances in
technology can take us to an even higher stage of city living: “supercities.”
2. Energy and resources: although integrated with external power grids and
resource production systems, a supercity is able to produce the majority of its
energy and resources through municipally integrated renewable
infrastructure, supplemented by external LFTRs or CHP Plants.
254
The Next Giant Leap
Supercities are closer to reality than one might think. Cities have been rapidly
developing over the past 100 years, and tomorrow’s technology is only going to
accelerate that pace. For example, take a look at the New York City skyline over
the past century, starting from 1914:
1914
1948
255
The Next Giant Leap
2014
In this 100-year period – a blink of an eye in historical terms – we see that the New
York City skyline has grown immensely in both scale and sophistication. With the
technical breakthroughs Universal Energy provides, we can advance urban
construction at proportionally reduced costs. As Universal Energy would enable
us to prefabricate and rapidly construct effectively any type of urban
infrastructure, we can grow cities to scales that are not yet possible today.
The question now becomes: what does the skyline of New York City, or any, look
in a world powered by a dynamic of effectively unlimited energy and resources,
20, 50, or even 100 years from now? Futuristic concepts notwithstanding, they
nonetheless represent the potential futures made possible by the advanced
technology on our near-term horizon.
256
The Next Giant Leap
Next-Generation Transportation
Until the invention of steam power, the only options for moving people or goods
over distance were either horses or sailboats. Today, we have cars, trains, and
planes that can carry us thousands of miles across the planet, some in a matter of
hours – advances that are fewer than 100 years old. Future improvements in
technology will make the world even more accessible, saying nothing of what lies
beyond our terrestrial home.
One of the first of such improvements is already here: the production of vehicles
and mass-transit systems that run on sustainable fuels, which Universal Energy
helps extend through electricity, hydrogen and graphene. But in a world with
nigh-unlimited energy, sustainable resources, advanced manufacturing methods,
and synthetic materials that are both lightweight and ultra-strong, the
possibilities multiply to the limit of imagination. Some notable standouts include:
257
The Next Giant Leap
One of the most extensive autonomous vehicle programs in the nation is run by
Google (“Waymo”), although Tesla, Audi, Uber and several other car
manufacturers have made significant investments in driverless technology.572
Google’s program has completed over 700,000 autonomous-driving miles with 12
separate vehicles, with only one safety incident that was caused by human
error.573 Uber’s model has been slightly less successful, with one fatality deemed
unavoidable due to a lone pedestrian jaywalking.574 To compare this safety record
with human drivers in the United States: 268 million vehicles annually drive 3.17
trillion miles per year575 and are involved in roughly 10 million accidents,
averaging to one accident per every 26.8 vehicles or every 317,000 miles driven.576
258
The Next Giant Leap
While safety is the most important factor when considering the benefits of self-
driving cars, it’s not the exclusive selling point:
• As all speed limits and road rules are obeyed by vehicle software, self-
driving cars are highly efficient, as they can maintain a uniform speed
without having to constantly accelerate or decelerate in reaction to other
vehicles (assuming all others on the road are also autonomous). This
ultimately reduces traffic congestion.
• Of the 33,000 road fatalities every year, nearly a third of them come from
drunk drivers; presumably the same is true of the 2.6 million injuries that
occur annually as well.577 Self-driving cars make this problem go away
effectively overnight.
259
The Next Giant Leap
sensors, they can also use the built-in Wi-Fi of renewable-integrated road surfaces
to navigate, providing system redundancy and security. As such vehicles would
increasingly be electric, they could also be charged on roads through wireless
emitters embedded within municipal infrastructure. In the increasingly unlikely
event of an accident, emergency crews could be instantly notified with automated
reports of the extent of the damage and the number of passengers injured.
Providing improved nationwide rail networks that can transport people or goods
at 300 miles per hour is a four-fold improvement over most domestic rail
technology. The implications this presents for trade, transport and tourism stand
to return extensive economic benefits, all the more so if considering the new job
opportunities opened by America gleaning expertise in this market sector.
260
The Next Giant Leap
Yet even though such speeds are impressive for a train, maglev technology can
theoretically propel trains much faster. The biggest obstacle to doing so is air
resistance, which at high speed becomes especially significant for safe operation.
A new system called the Hyperloop can enable us to change that.
261
The Next Giant Leap
The Hyperloop has already started construction and has demonstrated initial
successes in early tests and national competitions.582 Several companies have since
emerged to build functional models in Dubai, California and Europe .583 A world
with nigh-unlimited energy and resources alongside easy, sustainable access to
high-performance materials only stands to accelerate the development of next-
generation technologies and their arrival to market – presenting yet another
transformational addition to capabilities of human movement.
262
The Next Giant Leap
Personal Flight. The price of passenger vehicles has steadily dropped over time,
making them affordable to most Americans. Airplanes, however, remain
unaffordable to a majority of people, even though they’ve been around nearly as
long. For a few thousand dollars, you can get a working, used car. The cheapest
used aircraft starts at ten times that, given that the mechanical tolerances for
aerospace are more stringent than for land-based cars, and the demand for small
aircraft is substantially less.
Further, private aircraft have not enjoyed most of the safety advances seen in
motor vehicles. Life-saving features such as airbags and crumple zones are rare,
and only a select few planes feature roll cages and emergency parachutes.584 As
most private planes have forward-mounted engines, the lightweight fuselage
(skeletal structure) of the aircraft often lacks the structural integrity to prevent the
engine from crushing the occupants upon forward impact. The survivability of a
crash, therefore, becomes a dubious prospect in many cases – the safety measure,
by and large, is to not crash in the first place.
There are debatable causes to this slower progress of innovation in aviation, but
what’s certain is that circumstances are changing. Some of these changes involve
the greater inclusion of common-sense safety features into light aircraft.585 Yet
other companies have embraced advances in technology that allow flying craft to
be redesigned from the ground-up. Some of these are already seen today in the
form of quadcopter drones.
263
The Next Giant Leap
The concept of a quadcopter large enough to carry people (if only for short
distances) has already been proven to work with today’s materials. The SureFly
personal flying vehicle is one example of quadcopter innovation reaching
commercial viability.
264
The Next Giant Leap
While such quadcopters are possible with today’s technology limitations, their
capabilities can be extended via graphene’s capacity for structural strength and
energy storage. As discussed throughout this writing, graphene is an ultra-strong,
ultra-light, and ultra-conductive material that Universal Energy can cost-
effectively synthesize to effectively unlimited scales.
With it, not only can we store the requisite energy to power a large quadcopter
with minimal added weight, we can also integrate the storage medium into the
fuselage while ensuring uniformly high strength. This would make quadcopters
light and large enough to transport both people and materials.
265
The Next Giant Leap
After tackling energy storage and weight capacity, the next obstacle to building a
large quadcopter is a design that makes the quadcopter cost effective enough to
work for transportation – ideally in a way that can both fly and drive.
While we don’t have a human-sized solution yet, smaller-scale models have been
recently released that demonstrably prove the concept as workable.
Approximately two feet long and made with the same polycarbonate materials
comprising bullet-resistant glass, this vehicle can drive over obstacles at speeds
exceeding 20 miles per hour and engage flight rotors at a push of a button.586
While there are of course obstacles to scaling a smaller prototype to the size of a
vehicle large enough to transport people or cargo, they are absolutely solvable as
they center on areas that Universal Energy gives us the means to address:
266
The Next Giant Leap
The actual flight of any such vehicle would be as simple as driving a car. Large
quadcopters of 50 pounds or more are already being flown long distances using
two joysticks and a first-person video screen – far less than the array of functions
necessary to fly a helicopter or airplane. Any serious production of flying vehicles
would of course carry more options, safety features and
regulatory controls, but those are not obstructions to
their delivery. It’s also true that certain automobile
drivers might not demonstrate the requisite proficiency
to pilot flying vehicles. Besides the application of
automated flight controls, these concerns can be
addressed through more lengthy training and more
stringent licensing requirements. Fundamentally, these
aren’t details of potential capability. They’re details of
process, that and only.
It’s difficult to overstate how much this could improve how we live and move.
The overland distance between destinations “as the crow flies” is always shorter
than the meandering roads we have to take today, and that shorter distance can
significantly decrease the response time of emergency crews, help deliver rapid
aid to areas without road access, and, in the case of drone-sized quadcopters, even
deliver consumer goods on-demand.587
We are only one technological step away from having personal flying vehicles
that are safe, strong and easily flown. Vehicles that can use autopilot programs
that already fly and land commercial aircraft today.588 Vehicles that, like the
autonomous cars before them, can be charged via wireless power over
municipally integrated renewables and through designated relays – potentially
enabling effectively indefinite flight.589
267
The Next Giant Leap
Many of us spent our childhoods dreaming of the day when we would see flying
cars. The technical capabilities that can be at our fingertips tomorrow make this
dream possible, along with all others that have allowed this writing to portray a
vision for a future brighter than the one we face today.
The areas it places focus, like many of the possibilities opened up by Universal
Energy, are simply the beginning. We can extend these advancements to anything
we can imagine, from our day-to-day lives, to cutting-edge aerospace that can
revolutionize not just travel within our world, but well and far beyond it.590
This is the nature of advanced infrastructure as this writing refers to it, and the
realization of the future it brings is now at our command. We now have the tools
to make this – all of this – real. To manifest a reality where we can provide the
abundance, advancement, achievement and ascension we told ourselves was the
path we were destined to walk. We now have the means to build such as a world
as a testament to the choices we made in its furtherance, and the promises we
made to those who came before who brought us to this singular threshold, where
it could be transcended, at long last, by our own hand.
A future worth having. The start of something new. And the next giant leap.
268
The Next Giant Leap
- Marshall McLuhan
269
The Next Giant Leap
270
The Next Giant Leap
I have rewritten this chapter many times. Yet each instance I read those words I
must admit I become pained in a way that is profound. That such a conversation
needs to happen in the first place is, on its face, a travesty of potential and an
abdication of promise. It was fifty-one years ago, nearly to the day these words
were written, where mankind took its first giant leap and set foot upon our lunar
surface. It was a moment that reflected the culmination of unquantifiable sacrifice,
and immeasurable investment, into our ability to accomplish the impossible.
200,000 years of human evolution and the lives of billions converged at a single
moment in time – and we leapt forward.
That was the hope our future was meant to be built on. That was the light by
which we were meant to find our way.
Now in the decades hence, where the problems of our time command headlines
of newspapers instead of chapters of history books, I am haunted by a deeply
lonely and desolate sense of shame to think this future might be forsaken. That
for all of the nameless sacrifices people made throughout history, the future they
died for would nonetheless yield to a world where billions of others wallow in
needless, purposeless suffering. Where our ecological home is dying. Where the
possibility of nuclear extinction is an everyday fact of life. Where we are
dominated, again, and again, and again, by the petty conflicts that for millennia
have devoured the brightest elements of human potential.
271
The Next Giant Leap
Yet even in the face of these circumstances, I refuse – to my core biological basis
– to grant them surrender. Because our future is not yet forsaken. Because that
light has not yet left us. I believe it is still a guiding beacon, waiting to be once
again embraced as torches in our hearts, small as they may be against the shadows
of our time – yet together bright enough to beat the darkness. And with the tools
that can today be in our hands, I believe sincerely through every fiber of my soul
and being that we can accomplish exactly that, once and for all.
Because “the way things are” and “the way the world works” are not reflections
of incontrovertible destiny. They’re forces of circumstance, reflections of an old
model that, for all its faults, got us this far – yet is now too broken to carry us
further. We now require a new model, one that upgrades our existential
framework on a civilizational scale. A task that, at the pinnacle of our
technological prowess, is now at last possible.
It only takes our choice, like those who came before, to make that leap.
Thus, I am now speaking to you – as one person to another – in perhaps the only
opportunity I can in such a context to tell you that there is still a way to fix this. We
can still build a future where we can strive for higher aspirations and retire each
evening feeling legitimately hopeful for the days ahead. To hold belief that we
can embrace our full potential as a people and reach a harmonious plane of
existence with our environment, with our planet, and, most of all, with each other.
These aspirations are not “lofty,” nor are such appeals evocative of flowery
rhetoric or emotional cliché. They are core perspectives. If there is meaning to
this life, if life is precious and worth cherishing, worth empowering and worth
saving, then there is no greater goal we should have for ourselves. There should
be nothing more important that we would see achieved. This is the foundation of
existence. And by engaging these newfound capabilities at this critical time, we
can evolve the fundamental structures on which that foundation stands.
272
The Next Giant Leap
Type I: A civilization that sources its energy and resources from its planet.
Type II: A civilization that sources its energy and resource from its star.
Type III: A civilization that sources its energy and resources from its galaxy.
Other scientific philosophers, Carl Sagan, Michio Kaku, John Barrow – and
several others592 – have made their own models using their own insight and
expertise.593 Even if I had the intellect or standing to disagree with any of them, I
don’t. Yet deep within my mind is another tiered model, one that has influenced
my worldview and perspective starkly throughout my life. It’s not much different
than others like it, but it is a reflection of who I believe we are, what I believe we
are capable of, and what I believe we can become – should we so choose.
Tier 1: Fire and Stone: control of fire and the ability to craft stone tools,
subsisting exclusively on a hunter-gatherer diet.
This tier represents approximately 95% of human history.
Tier 2: Agricultural: the ability to grow crops and raise livestock, accelerating
population growth. Social hierarchies and customs form, and the possibility of
organized conflict becomes a fixture of life. Humanity reached this tier during
the Neolithic Revolution, around 10,000 B.C.E
273
The Next Giant Leap
Tier 5: Atomic: civilization discovers atomic energy and has the ability to build
large-scale infrastructure. Population grows exponentially. Potential for
resource conflict increases, as does the potential for mass destruction. We
reached this tier on 16 July, 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated.
Tier 6: Orbital: civilization can defy gravity and even orbit. Electronics and
globalized communications emerge. Transportation over terrestrial distances
becomes trivial. Population continues to grow exponentially. Potential for
resource conflict is extreme, which for the first time can potentially be an
extinction-level event due to nuclear arsenals and global delivery mechanisms.
We reached this tier on 4 October, 1957 at the launch of the first satellite.
This is the tier we are in now.
274
The Next Giant Leap
In this model, we first and foremost see that humankind has ascended at an
accelerating rate. It took us ~190,000 years to go from Tier 1 to Tier 2, yet only
12,000 years to go from Tier 2 to Tier 6 – the tier we remain in presently. And
while this is an impressive reflection of our capabilities, we’ve only come far
enough to be forced to take another leap, for a critical attribute of our tier is that
it’s inherently precarious.
It’s a reality that pays homage to “The Great Filter,” which is a derivative
consideration of “The Fermi Paradox” – an essential philosophical question when
discussing our seemingly isolated existence within the vast cosmos our planet
calls home.
Postulated by the great physicist Enrico Fermi in the 1950’s, the question can be
succinctly paraphrased as the following:
How can our universe, in all its unimaginable vastness, present such an immense
likelihood for sentient life, yet at the same time we can’t seem to find it?
Our planet, Earth, orbits our Sun along with seven other planets, comprising our
solar system. It is only one out of roughly 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy,
the Milky Way.595 Our galaxy, itself, is only one out of some two trillion galaxies in
our observable universe by the last known estimate.596
In another way of saying, if we were to take every person alive today and send
them each to a unique galaxy, we’d only be able to visit about 0.37% of them. As
each galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars and there are trillions of galaxies, it
makes the odds of Earth being the only planet to support life in the cosmos to be
nigh impossibly low.
275
The Next Giant Leap
It’s so impossibly unlikely that we’re alone, yet at the same time, we haven’t heard
from another lifeform beyond our planet that we know of.
“The Great Filter” is a proposed answer to this paradox, theorizing that all
intelligent life faces a threshold it must cross for it to ascend beyond its planet and
survive for the long term. That in order to truly advance as a species, it must
overcome a series of obstacles which would otherwise stop its ascent – or be the
harbinger of its destruction.
If all of Earth’s history were reduced to the scale of one year, humanity did not
emerge until 11:55PM on New Year’s Eve. We only reached the modern era at
about 10 seconds to midnight. By 7 seconds to midnight, we had invented the
means to cause our own extinction. By 5 seconds to midnight, we will have run
out of the resources that sustains our rapidly expanding population. And if our
dynamic remains unchanged, it will destroy us before the clock strikes twelve.
That is “The Great Filter.” It is something that we are facing right now, today.
And it is our generation, our time, that is tasked with passing this gauntlet of
unforgiving truth.
Yet it’s a reality that makes us brethren against the forces, natural as they may
well be, which would otherwise erase what we have built and accomplished. That
would extinguish the stories of who we are and who we could become, casting
the ashes of the aggregate into a void where the culmination of our memory is to
be forgotten. For this reason, this writing has conveyed a sense of touch in
language that appeals to the power you bring to bear as a person, in hopes that it
would inspire your choice of action towards building a better world and a
brighter future.
276
The Next Giant Leap
I believe there is an ether in this world that embraces our sense of soul and what
it means to be human. An ether that connects us on a core wavelength, where we
all wish the best for ourselves and for others, and ascribe value to our sense of
collective meaning and shared purpose. We find it, in moments, at high points in
our lives and seek it still maybe through churches and community organizations,
as acolytes of sports teams, countercultures or ideological tribes; striving for
warmth and affirmation through what strings of connection we can grasp and
hold close. Yet another torch in our hearts, perhaps, one that keeps the cold and
loneliness at bay.
This ether is not esoteric. It’s not something that can be made, bought or bartered
for – it’s been within us all along, an aspect of the human condition that we can
engage in ourselves and others should we be willing; that like love, friendship,
respect and honor is a conduit for connection, for inspiration, for belonging. It
does not come from acquisition. It comes from choice.
The best parts of ourselves are made possible because we choose them. We choose
to be better, to give, build, create and forgive, just as we choose to hate, steal,
forsake and destroy. While perhaps inclined towards one aspect or another by
our natural dispositions, we are ultimately manifestations of our choices – defined
one way or another by the actions we take, the ethers we embrace, and the natures
we feed.
The world that we live in, therefore, is a collective reflection of those choices –
even if we didn’t realize that we made them, or that those who came before us
made them, or those who came before them still. The world we wake up in
tomorrow, accordingly, will reflect the same. But uniquely in our context is an
unprecedented capability to expand the impact of our choices and the scope of
options we have available. And of them, the most vital is the neutralization of the
concept of need.
Such dualities define both ancient and modern frameworks of theology, law,
nationalism, decorum, ideology – even technology, itself made possible by the
application of binary numbers, 0 and 1, processed through transistors on a
massive scale. When applied to the realities of our nature, each of these dualities
277
The Next Giant Leap
have abstract merit in our world past, present and future. Yet none of them truly
identify the core dichotomy of the human condition. Our world is not bound by
good versus evil, or right versus wrong, or strong versus weak. It’s bound by
supply versus need.
Need is the driving adversary of the human condition; the core malady that has
continually held us back as a species since the dawn of time, and has kept us
fighting amongst each other instead of enabling us to realize that we can reach
our true potential, and a new plateau, should we enact the means to make the
concept of need irrelevant. Today, we now possess those means, and we can
choose to wield them for that end – to defeat our ancient adversary with finality,
and build a better world upon its ruin.
278
The Next Giant Leap
It may not be easy, yet it’s incumbent on us to shake off the apathy and
despondence our time has given us cause to adopt, and to embrace the better parts
of ourselves the world’s cruelties have taught us to suppress. It’s incumbent on
us to consider reinvesting in ourselves and our future with tools that can even the
odds in our favor. To invest in the potential of each other, to understand their
perspectives and forgive their prejudices, and seek to find common ground strong
enough for us to once again start building. We may not be able to solidify all
ground to find commonality, but we can solidify enough ground to build
platforms on which we can extend our hands and, maybe one day, a bridge.
At the end of the day, deep within ourselves, who we are, what we care for, what
we value, is that not the choice of life? Is that not what we want for ourselves, for
our children, and for theirs? For thousands of years, people just like us gave
everything they had for our future. Our time is the culmination of a billion
sacrifices – every soldier on every battlefield, every martyr, every king, tyrant,
slave, warrior, artisan, philosopher, lord or peasant. The sum of all their toils, all
the sacrifices of their hopes and lost dreams are boiled down to this moment, here,
and now, and the choices we make with the time we have been given.
Simply stated, I can’t think of anything worse than failing them. To not carry the
torch they have lit and carried for us to the victory they never could reach, the
victory that we uniquely can. To me there is nothing more important, and I’m
tired of being encouraged to ignore that. I’m tired of glorified ignorance to the
reality of our world and our potential to change it. I refuse to continue granting
meaning to society’s dog and pony shows: celebrity news, celebrated
complacency and fleeting materialism – the choreographed wrestling matches of
today’s bribed political dynamic – all washed down with diet cola and light beer.
We have one life to live, one life to interact with the framework of existence, and
we find ourselves at the zenith of our capability to evolve the foundations of our
biological constraints. To choose to take this leap, to reach a higher tier, and to
live knowing that this was when our species made it. Where we passed the test
life gave us and earned the right to continue our evolution not just within our
world, but far beyond it.
That is the choice of our time – one that faces every one of us. And as one of us, I
made a promise to devote my very best efforts to propose an actually effective
way to choose for that end. Something that could be given away to anyone who
279
The Next Giant Leap
wished to adopt – and evolve – these ideas, and begin discussing how we can
work together to see them made real.
Nobody asked me, paid me or qualified me to make this promise. I did this on
my own, and I made this promise, to myself, and to you, to see this task fulfilled
because I chose to. I made this promise because I don’t answer to the cynics and
the apologists of the status quo – I answer to you.
I answer to you because we are all in this together, and I sincerely and honestly
believe in our shared capabilities, in the potential that we can have if we set aside
our contrived differences and work together to build what can become of the best
of ourselves.
It’s the only thing that can save us. It’s the only thing that should save us.
And should we choose to make that leap, then our feet will land in uncharted
terrain on a brilliant frontier. As technology expands and satisfies ever-more
needs through indefinite resource production, conflicts will reduce, economies
will grow, as will relationships and trade agreements. Development and
modernization will begin in regions that were once war-torn, and the echoes of
resource conflict will begin to fade into memory, just like all other plights of our
nature that technical means have allowed us to banish into the past. From there,
as technology greater connects us and brings us closer together, exploration
beyond Earth will become ever-more sophisticated and we will find what there is
to discover in the vastness beyond our planet.
We will reach not just the next tier of civilization, but also an essential realization:
that we are not just members of individual countries, as this isn’t the label that
should define us. We are all human beings; we are all people – that is the label
that should define us. That is because we all share this rock in space together. And
whether we live on it together, or die on it together, one way or the other,
ultimately, it will be so together.
It is my greatest hope that we can be able to realize that one day. We place
boundless faith in gods we cannot see to form our fate and future. Perhaps we
could strive instead to see the day where we might place faith in each other.
280
The Next Giant Leap
281
The Next Giant Leap
282
The Next Giant Leap
“The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least
in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it
or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There
is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image
of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one
another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”
- Carl Sagan
283
The Next Giant Leap
284
The Next Giant Leap
Appendix
285
The Next Giant Leap
286
The Next Giant Leap
This implementation strategy will hinge on several factors: how much Universal
Energy is estimated to cost, the logistics and management of implementation,
how it can be funded, and how it can overhaul our economy. This boilerplate
strategy is intended to be a proposed path for actionable efforts to implement the
framework and a starting point to encourage both commercial and state
enterprises to begin investing in a next-generation clean energy future.
First, we will consider how much Universal Energy is estimated to cost at full,
nationwide implementation – quantified by an energy generation potential of
300% of our present capacity (including current infrastructure). This figure is
estimated to be $6.63 trillion USD paid over a period of 10 years ($663 billion
annually), a detailed pricing breakdown of which can be found on page 315.
While this figure is substantially less than other energy overhauls that have been
proposed by both public and private initiatives, it still carries a degree of “sticker
shock” that’s important to dispel in the context of nationwide infrastructural
projects. This is all the more true since Universal Energy carries myriad social
benefits that are not presented by most of the primary consumers of public funds
(like endless wars).
In that mention, it’s worth reviewing some of the larger expenditures our time
has seen paid, whether we as a people focused on it directly or not:
287
The Next Giant Leap
• $38 trillion: the inflation-adjusted total the Federal Government (alone) has
spent over the past 10 years.598
• $6.8 trillion: the aggregate sum of U.S. Defense Budgets for the past ten
years. This figure does not include military spending paid outside of the
defense budget (veterans affairs, pensions, homeland security, clandestine
operations, interest on war debt, nuclear arms, etc.).599
• $6.4 trillion: the aggregate sum the United States has spent on wars in the
Middle East and Asia since 2001.600
• $3.5 trillion: the total sum we have paid on the interest on the national debt
over the past 10 years. Not principal – just interest.601
• $1.5 trillion: the estimated cost of the F-35 fighter jet program over its
operational lifetime. That’s for a single class of military aircraft.602
• $6.5 trillion: the total sum the U.S. military is unable to account for in a recent
audit.603
In aggregate, these fantastical expenses have given our society very little in
tangible value, and could have paid for Universal Energy several times over. In
doing so, it could have instead built the foundations for a world that would
consider scarcity – the prime reason for the accumulation and utilization of hard
power to begin with – as a relic of a past, and have enacted a shift in circumstances
that avoided the need for mass military spending in the first place – a true value,
at comparatively modest cost.
The short answer is a mixture of public and private entities backed by a tax and
investment incentives. The longer answer is more nuanced and specific to the
areas of implementation, which we’ll go over in more detail throughout this
section and Appendix. We’ll begin by outlining the allocation of spending
responsibility for the resource sector in question. In doing so, this estimate
separates resource production into two categories: public resources and commercial
resources.
288
The Next Giant Leap
Public resources. Critical resources that require implementation over a large scale,
and/or operation with existing public infrastructure – making them ideal candidates
for municipal management: water, electricity, and hydrogen fuel. These systems
comprise the $6.63 trillion cost estimate for Universal Energy (page 315). In this
model, the systems that produce these resources are developed by a mixture of
public and private enterprise (explained below), yet purchased and implemented
by public services, delivering their produced resources as managed-profit
municipal functions.
To recap: the provision of public resources are the responsibility of the public
sector. The provision of commercial resources are the responsibility of the private
sector, even both will use technologies developed in large part by private enterprise.
A fundraising approach to reach $663 billion per year to pay for Universal Energy’s
initial deployment would come from several sources: government spending cuts
(with intensive, honest and public investigations on wasteful programs and
expenditures), mitigation of social problems requiring government expenditure and
289
The Next Giant Leap
To explain exactly what that is, I think it would be helpful to first illustrate why The
Public Interest Company is different from other business entities – especially entities
that resemble some form of marriage between the public sector and private
business. To that end, let’s consider some of these entities, and more importantly
why they are not capable of managing Universal Energy’s implementation or long-
term operation:
This is why, for example, telecommunication companies in the United States have a
virtual oligarchy for mobile, television and internet service, which is why we pay
significantly more than the rest of the world for those services at significantly
reduced quality.604 We cannot have this happen with something as important as
Universal Energy.
290
The Next Giant Leap
However, bureaucracies can tend to look dimly upon the notions of efficiency and
accountability, even if what services they provide are ultimately of ostensible social
value. This is rooted in the fact that there is no competition for a bureaucracy, and
they are relatively insulated from outside audit to hold their performance
accountable or change the regulations they write by themselves.
For non-profits centered around charity work, much of what money they raise is
simply given away or spent to mitigate social problems. For other “non-profits” that
are set up for pass-through income (like the NFL used to be), proceeds go to various
stakeholders or administrative functions as opposed to expanding the
organization’s scale.
But The Public Interest Company is different – its goal is to expand the reach of
Universal Energy and ever-improve the quality and value of the service it provides.
It needs to profit to some extent because systems will eventually need to be repaired,
upgraded and replaced over time. Also, the scale of Universal Energy’s
implementation will need to increase as wide as possible to effectively end resource
scarcity and climate change – both of which cost money.
291
The Next Giant Leap
To this end, whatever profits raised will need to be directly re-invested into The
Public Interest Company, making the traditional non-profit model less than ideal.
Public/private hybrid. In the past, our government has jumped into bed with
various private businesses to create conglomerated, state-owned entities, and in
many cases, the results were monstrosities. Indeed, the marriage of “big business”
with “big government” frequently ranks among the finest examples of government
buffoonery, even among the other resident experts in this department (see: The
Pentagon).605 But while the execution is lacking, the idea is ostensibly well-intended.
Yet the reason this model fails on execution is because it is fatally flawed from the
onset, as the entity is run in the same capacity as a bureaucracy: seeking not to rock
the political boat, resisting accountability and efforts to self-reflect, self-reform and
self-advance. Universal Energy’s implementation needs to be performed by an
entity that shares opposite traits and yet still retains all of the positive aspects of
corporate business and not-for-profit companies – which brings us back to The
Public Interest Company.
The Public Interest Company is intended to combine all the positive aspects of
these business models while discarding their drawbacks.
Like a bureaucracy, a Public Interest Company provides a public service for the
public interest and is (initially) funded by public funds, but unlike a bureaucracy or
public-private hybrid, a Public Interest Company isn’t owned by the government.
Rather, it’s owned by the public, collectively, and remains directly accountable therein.
Each U.S. citizen, upon reaching voting age, is given a single share of the company
and is paid dividends from the company in the event of financial surpluses. As
opposed to a corporation where the majority shareholder has the most sway, all
shareholders have equal voice.
In this model, The Public Interest Company would be run by a board of directors
that serve eight-year terms and are elected every Presidential election cycle by the
292
The Next Giant Leap
public via simple majority, ranked-choice vote. These board members, in turn,
would appoint a CEO of the company to manage it in the same capacity as a
corporation today. The CEO would remain accountable to the elected board, which
could also vote to issue bonds to raise money for future initiatives, or in the case of
revenue surpluses due to international sales of Universal Energy’s systems (which
are sold at greater profit margins abroad), issue dividends to shareholders. In this
model, all votes and meeting minutes of The Public Interest Company are
transparent by design and made public.
Upon selecting a bid, The Public Interest Company pays a private enterprise to
develop, deliver and implement the systems that provide the Universal Energy
framework. It’s no different than how the government buys a fighter jet, except this
expenditure now instead goes to systems of higher social value. And once the
system was owned by The Public Interest Company, it would be implemented as
determined by a nationwide implementation plan The Public Interest Company
would publicly issue every year.
• In cases where the PIC paid contractors to engineer new systems, the PIC
would retain ownership of all intellectual property pertaining to the system,
the agreement of which would be a prerequisite to awarding any contract.
• In cases where the PIC deems appropriate, it would have the authority to
purchase intellectual property from private entities should the entity be
willing to sell them.
293
The Next Giant Leap
Depending on which case applies, The Public Interest Company would manage any
delivered systems to provide energy and resources to society at low cost, quantified
as no more than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. In operation, The Public Interest
Company would have four funding sources:
Direct energy sales. The target price of electricity under Universal Energy is 2
cents/kilowatt-hour – 84% less than what it costs today. Assuming electricity
consumption increases ~50% to 6.5 trillion kWh annually, this will generate an
annual $130 billion to The Public Interest Company. This model does not include
pricing models for hydrogen fuel, but expects it to sell at a comparatively lower rate.
Corporate bonds. To fund future initiatives, the Public Interest Company could
issue bonds with a fixed rate of interest on an open market, subject to shareholder
vote. These bonds would be sold similarly to any corporate / treasury bond today,
with the exception that capital gains taxes on profits would be lower for The Public
Interest Company.
International sales. The Public Interest Company, through coordination with the
State Department, would sell energy technologies to foreign governments at an
increased profit, generating significant revenue.
With direct energy sales, corporate bonds and international technology sales, The
Public Interest Company would ideally be operationally self-sustaining after the 10-
year initial funding period. As its scale expands, it would first pay into a surplus
fund to cover any future cost overruns. With this fund in place, it would continue
to re-invest profits over time into energy-producing infrastructure, either to expand
the scale of implementation or maintain systems that have already been deployed.
Once profits reach a point where there are continual budget surpluses, these
surpluses would be evenly divided and issued as dividends to all company
shareholders (every American citizen of voting age until death).
294
The Next Giant Leap
Yet while the scarcity of resources carries negative economic impact, an abundance
of resources inversely causes economic growth – all the more so if that abundance
is indefinite. To fully embrace that growth, this writing advocates spending
significant sums of money to build systems on a nationwide scale to make nigh
unlimited energy and resources a reality.
The model that this expenditure operates is neither capitalism, socialism nor even
“social democracy” – an oft-referenced capitalist/social hybrid that’s seen in many
European democracies. Rather, this model takes a wholly distinct approach to a
society’s economic framework because it establishes parameters outside of a finite
resource paradigm.
This model is called “Collective Capitalism” because it hinges on the belief that the
systems of capitalism work best when all social sectors are operating from a place
of maximum strength. This idea in and of itself is not controversial – few would
argue that a collectively stronger, more educated, more prosperous and healthier
society functions at greater performance than not. Yet using an ideological approach
(liberal, conservative, technocratic) to achieve this status is far more elusive than a
technological approach that can help build the foundations by means of indefinite
provision. Indeed, it’s much easier to provide water, energy, food or fuel to
everyone when you can synthesize them inexpensively to effectively unlimited
scales.
But the core resource provisions for our social operation are simply the first step.
Collective Capitalism, as a mindset, seeks to extend those provisions to everyone at
a low cost so everyone, collectively, can operate from a place of security and
strength and engage the mechanisms of capitalism to invest, achieve, discover,
invent and, in turn, continue to perpetually improve the collective by virtue of
capitalism’s inherent rewards. It’s the system we should have had, and wish we
had, but was missing the key component of unlimited energy and resources.
295
The Next Giant Leap
For example, here are some of the more noteworthy aspects of social and economic
improvement that can be realized through Universal Energy:
According to the U.S. Census, the median household income in the United States is
$60,336.606 Not accounting for state and local sales taxes (as well as property taxes if
a homeowner and/or extra payroll taxes if self-employed), the average wage earner
has a tax burden of 29.6% of their 2018 pre-tax income.607 That would mean that the
median U.S. household takes home roughly $42,500 (rounding up for easier math).
Note citation for rationale of average versus median figures in this context.608
With that broken down, we’ll source some routine life costs:
• According to the USDA (as cited by USA Today), the weekly cost to feed a
family of four ranges from $146-$289.00.609 The median cost of that range is
$218.00 / week. That’s $942.50 per month, or $11,310 per year.
296
The Next Giant Leap
for households consuming the national average of 88 gallons per day.615 That
comes to a total of $1,506 per year.
Adding up the costs of electricity, fuel, water and heat, that comes to $5,732 per year,
arriving at $17,042 when the cost of food is added in.
Assuming further that this cost saving could be extrapolated on a per-capita basis,
that comes to a total of $2,037 per person of any age. Across a society of 330 million
(according to the U.S. census), that comes to a total of $672 billion that can be
injected into our economy, saved for retirement or education, invested into real
estate, businesses or other financial strategies.
The scale of such a figure presents massive implications for all income classes, but
especially the lowest – for each extra dollar in their pocket in this context is not only
tax-free (effectively making its real value 29% higher), it functions as a force
multiplier to their financial mobility. Indeed, an extra $500 per month to a family
living paycheck to paycheck matters far more than it does to a family that’s
independently wealthy.
297
The Next Giant Leap
Energy is an inexorable aspect of the costs of doing business today in our global
economy. This is quantified across several key areas: energy costs of material and/or
resource procurement, manufacturing, transportation, processing of both material
and data, heating, lighting, etc. These factors each manifest one way or another into
nearly all business sectors, and consequently are absorbed into the price of the
product or service that’s offered at market. If reduced energy costs can provide a
cost savings for residential households, the purchasing and consumption scale of
incorporated business would see corresponding reductions on subsequently higher
orders.
This is all the truer since the cost reductions would cascade across an array of
business sectors and their interoperating supply and manufacturing chains. For
example: if Universal Energy makes a raw material 20% less expensive to source at
equal quality, reduces the energy cost to manufacture systems with it by 20%, and
further enables a 20% cost reduction to transport the manufactured product to
market – those cost savings combine across the supply chain. Across our national –
or global – economy, the financial implications are enormous.
To determine just how impactful, we’ll take a look at figures from the Energy
Information Administration, specifically their Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey (CBECS) for the year 2012 (the last year in which full data is
available).616
The CBECS survey further assessed that American business consumed 2.193 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas in 2012619 at a cost of $7.78 per thousand cubic feet for
commercial enterprise and $4.21 per thousand cubic feet for industrial applications.
That respectively totals $17 billion and $9.23 billion.
Now, we’ll take a quick look at fuel. According to the Department of Transportation,
commercial vehicles (including trucks and busses) accounted for about ten percent
of all vehicle miles driven.620 Further data by the Energy Information
298
The Next Giant Leap
Administration, as curated by Statista, estimates that the U.S. consumed 8.98 million
barrels per day of gasoline and 3.13 million barrels per day of distillate fuel oil
(which includes diesel).621 That translates to 3.277 billion barrels of gasoline and
1.142 billion barrels of distillate fuel oil. Extrapolated into gallons (at 42 gallons to
the barrel), these figures respectively translate to 137.66 billion gallons of gasoline
and 47.98 billion gallons of diesel.
At a national average price of $2.70 / gallon for gasoline and $3.06 for diesel,622 that
comes to a total aggregate cost of $176.65 billion.
With this established, let’s add up our totals. Based on the calculations above, we’ve
estimated that:
Added up, that comes to $149.63 billion for commercial enterprises and $95.23
billion for heavy industry that’s added on top of the estimated $176.65 billion
shared by both for diesel and fuel costs.
This creates a total cost liability of between $326.28 billion and $271.88 billion
depending commercial or industrial application. If we were to split the difference,
that would come to a figure of roughly $300 billion per year.
If that figure, for sake of argument, were subjected to an 82% cost reduction, that
would present a cost savings of $246 billion per year. As this translates to $2.46
trillion per decade, such cost reductions present a capital abundance that can further
enable businesses of all sizes to invest in their own growth and future success.
299
The Next Giant Leap
This approach can be scaled further through targeted tax incentives. When
discussing Universal Energy’s management and implementation strategy in the
previous section of the Appendix, mention was made of the possibility of
dramatically lowering the tax liability for businesses operating in Universal
Energy’s sectors, along with corresponding incentives for the employees and
investors of such companies.
The same is true for the employees of such industries, as well as their investors
across equities, bonds and other financial products. If an industry provides
empirical social benefits on a transformational scale, why should an employee face
the same tax burden as an employee of an industry that doesn’t directly deliver the
same degree of social improvements? Further, why should an investor seeking to
inject capital into a socially beneficial enterprise pay the same capital gains taxes as
someone seeking a quick profit by shorting the same stock, or by throwing their
money into shadier organizations like private prisons or conglomerates with
abysmal human rights records?
Here’s what this could look like in practice. Let’s say that we establish an empirical
threshold (defined specifics, not abstract opinions) of social benefit within varied
industrial sectors, and assign “classifications” to such industries using a transparent
assessment criteria. Beyond participation in Universal Energy, this criteria could
include a lower ratio of executive to average worker compensation, demonstrated
ethical track record, external social outreach and investment, operational
transparency, and/or quality of benefits offered to their workforce in aggregate.
300
The Next Giant Leap
Under this model, current companies do not pay any more in taxation than they do
today, yet Class A and Class B corporations would receive significantly more
attractive tax incentives to engage in business sectors earning such classifications –
of which Universal Energy would be a primary qualifier. This reasoning can
extend further to other industries that deliver an empirical social benefit: making
bionic limbs for amputees, investing in next-generation medical research, building
advanced transportation infrastructure, and so on.
In such reasoning, there is a clear distinction here between “picking winners and
losers” and incentivizing investment to industries that make the world an
objectively better place. Collective Capitalism doesn’t seek methods that punish
industries, companies, or personnel that do not choose to invest in empirical social
progress, but it does seek to reward them through the establishment of frameworks
that makes this task easier and less expensive. In turn, this would incentivize and
encourage a social impetus to continually invest and be part of industries that
deliver a strong social benefit – and, further, seek to expand that benefit at higher
rates of return than otherwise.
301
The Next Giant Leap
high-tech weaponry so much as they are expert engineering firms that specialize in
building high-tech systems. There are few obstacles, in real terms, from shifting
primary focus from military infrastructure to domestic infrastructure. If you can
build a Generation-V fighter jet, you can build effectively anything. Providing both
a public funding impetus and tax incentive to shift from weapons to, say,
sophisticated energy technologies, next-generation rail travel, hyperloops or
civilian aerospace can help facilitate this transition.
In conjunction with lower operating expenses from energy cost reductions and
public funding allocations for Universal Energy and its underlying technologies,
this can keep current flagship industries in play building critical American
infrastructure, while also enabling opportunities for start-ups to gain a foothold and
accordingly prosper. This would transform the “military industrial complex” into
an “energy/resource industrial complex,” delivering cascading social benefits at
only moderate costs.
It’s true that in the past, certain historical instances of operating cost reductions have
seen some companies choose to pay for increased executive bonuses and stock
buybacks,623 as opposed to workforce expansion and salary increases. But these have
primarily occurred in instances where a company had entrenched dominance in
their market sector and could comfortably afford to rest on their laurels to hold off
emergent competitors who came to market with more nimble and disruptive
approaches.
This possibility would be substantially harder with the market sectors opened up
by Universal Energy, not only because the technologies (and thus industries) are in
a degree of infancy that hinders monopolization, but also because The Public
Interest company (in this model) would seek to prioritize contracts with companies
who a) hire American, b) pay competitive wages and benefits, c) competes fairly
302
The Next Giant Leap
To see how, let’s quickly circle back to the estimated $246 billion American
businesses would save under Universal Energy. At an assumed 25% tax overhead
to hire a salaried employee at $50,000 per year ($62,500), this reduction in energy and
fuel costs alone would be sufficient to create 3.94 million new jobs. Adding on the
potential savings due to increased corporate classification, investment in next-
generation industries and technologies, and the advent and functions of The Public
Interest Company, and the potential job growth increases substantially.
The first area to receive these funds would be engineering companies that develop
the underlying technologies for Universal Energy. This will create job demand
within a multitude of technical skills: physics and engineering, metallurgy,
computer science, software development, graphic modelling, automated
manufacturing, 3-D printing, quality control, human resources, project
management, advertising and marketing (among others).
As these companies expand along with job demand, they in turn will need to expand
their acquisition of materials and resources to develop the systems they were
contracted to deliver. They will need to buy materials, tools, vehicles, fixtures, office
space, uniforms, amenities and everything else that comes from the manufacturing
world. All of this will create jobs.
It will also create job demand in industrial sectors these companies depend on to
operate, which in turn will create job demand in all of the support and promotion
positions that make their own business possible. This job demand will create
additional demand for schools and the educators to staff them along with all of the
support positions that make their jobs possible. The result is a cascading increase in
job demand corresponding to a cascading reduction in operating costs – not only
303
The Next Giant Leap
The social investments and derivative results inherent to Universal Energy and
Collective Capitalism fundamentally makes life easier and less expensive. An
abundance of inexpensive energy and resources reduces the cost of living and
increases economic, career and social mobility. It further mitigates the scarcity and
desperation-driven impetuses to engage in criminal activity. Life’s just “better” and
people have more time and opportunities to engage in activities that they find value
in – be it their family, hobbies, side projects or new vocations. In these
circumstances, it is significantly easier for someone to start their own company,
innovate a new idea or product, and/or invest either time or money in another
venture they believe will ultimately have social value. It expands the purchasing
power, investing power and financial influence of the middle class, and extends to
them luxuries that were once available only to the social elite.
304
The Next Giant Leap
In this line of reasoning, it’s worth mentioning that much of our culture today is
provided by artists and writers who thrived in generations past. (Indeed, many of
the comic book heroes who grace movie screens today debuted 50-80 years ago).
There’s little market for today’s storytellers, artists, poets, artisans or philosophers
because it’s difficult for them to make a living from doing so. These people once
305
The Next Giant Leap
gave society great value, but today their creative capabilities are sidelined by the
demands of a cutthroat economy.
The financial benefits inherent to the Collective Capitalism afford the provision for
abstract social concepts and enlighten the subjects we discuss, goals we set and
behaviors we value. Because all core needs are met in this model through
technology, the stresses and efforts that were previously required to meet the
demands of life are no longer present. Concordantly, we no longer need to distract
ourselves with fleeting content to make ourselves feel better in the face of these
stresses and efforts, allowing us to finally concentrate on what we truly want as
people, as we truly want it.
Over time, this will further mitigate existing social problems and increase the scale
of shared economic prosperity on multiple fronts which allows our society to look
inward and mend its wounds to become stronger and form a more cohesive cultural
identity based on an improved quality of life.
Notably, this is an identity that can refresh our reputation abroad. When combined
with the provision of Universal Energy’s technologies internationally (allowing
other countries to further increase their own quality of life) this affords us a degree
of appreciation that can work to re-solidify the United States as the center for global
economic and cultural identity. Additionally, it can extend our humanitarian
outreach and also lead to stronger alliances.
Universal Energy would have done far more for Haiti than the largely ineffective
relief efforts that consumed a total of $14 billion,625 the same with any other area
victimized by natural disasters. Additionally, we maintain allegiances with other
countries today based largely on inexpensive resource acquisition and the security
assurances and weapons exports that come with them. But an allegiance of security
is an allegiance based on fear…and fear knows little loyalty. Rather, we could create
allegiances based on social and economic improvement and a functional end to the
social afflictions inherent to resource scarcity and climate change. These are
allegiances based on far healthier terms amid a global climate of heightened
economic prosperity and easier conditions for peace.
306
The Next Giant Leap
To begin, we’ll start with the federal budget, FY2018, using figures sourced from
the Congressional Budget Office.626
307
The Next Giant Leap
Of these outlays, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are (at least in theory)
supposed to be funded through separate revenue-raising measures (payroll taxes
(FICA)) but are often included in total federal expenditures. This model
acknowledges the comparatively poor value American public healthcare costs
represent compared to the rest of the developed world (we generally pay more
per-person for public healthcare programs that are only available to the poor and
elderly than other nations do for healthcare that covers everyone in their society).
However, this model’s focus will not center on the over-payment of public health
programs – nor the current state or solvency of Social Security. Instead, it will
focus primarily on the expenditures and functions of the United States Federal
Government as it exists today. In doing so, we’ll also need to take a look at the
revenue it earns over a fiscal year (again in this case for 2018).
For FY2018, the U.S. raised a total of $3.3 trillion – some $800 billion less than it
spent (meaning there remained a “deficit” of $800 billion).
308
The Next Giant Leap
Of this revenue raised, $1.2 trillion was for the “trust-funded” programs of Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid (which we’re not including in this analysis). As
these programs are supposed to be funded through separate payroll taxes, we
will break down revenue allocations/deficits by funding source and intended use:
For this analysis, we will assume that the deficit comes primarily from a lack of
payroll taxes to fund FICA-related trust programs – not general revenue for the
operating functions of the Federal Government. To fill this gap, this model
suggests raising payroll taxes accordingly alongside honest and effective
309
The Next Giant Leap
Defense spending. One of the most surprising aspects of the federal budget is
how many expenditures outside of the “defense budget” are actually exclusively
defense-related costs. For example:
• Military retiree pay, at $54.7 billion for FY2018, is paid out of the
discretionary budget.628
• Of the $325 billion in national debt interest payments for FY2018 (the total
debt of which is $23 trillion), at least 26% is due from the $6.3 trillion the
U.S. government has borrowed to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.632
The nonprofit War Resisters League estimates that war costs comprise as
much as 80% of our national debt, although it acknowledges most sources
estimate the figure to be approximately half.633 We will assume a figure of
50% in this analysis, arriving at $162.5 billion.
Conventional wisdom frequently touches on how much more our nation spends
on “defense” compared to the rest of the world – exceeding the total of the next
eight nations combined, even though we count six of the eight as allies.
310
The Next Giant Leap
Yet this figure only counts our stated defense spending, whereas our total
spending is nearly twice that. This model suggests that investing in a framework
that dramatically reduces the underlying need for a global military empire is a far
wiser expenditure than wasting endless trillions on military technologies that
eventually become obsolete as future conflicts evolve. Consequently, this model
assumes that through a mixture of honest accounting, scaling down the mandate
and global scope of our military – and ensuring all military costs are paid through
the defense budget – we could be able to pare off $350 billion annually from our
$1.163 trillion annual military expenditure (a 30% reduction that would still make
us spend more than the next eight nations combined).
311
The Next Giant Leap
• There are more than 451 independent federal agencies tasked with
various aspects of societal management with the power to independently
enact regulations across all areas of our society.635
However, if we are going to make an honest attempt to both reallocate our federal
spending towards more socially beneficial focuses and pare down our national
debt, the concept of increasing certain taxes is worth considering in abstract. Yet
in doing so, this model will not focus on income taxes directly, and instead will
seek to raise revenue through additional sales on tobacco, alcohol, marijuana
(legalized) and luxury goods. Here’s how this could look:
312
The Next Giant Leap
Vice excise taxes: the federal cigarette tax today is $1.01 per pack, and brings in $14
billion for the federal government.637
The federal tax on alcohol is $13.50 per proof-gallon of distilled spirits (roughly 21
cents per ounce of alcohol), $18 per barrel of beer (roughly 10 cents per ounce), and
$1.07 per gallon of wine (roughly 8 cents per ounce).638 These taxes collect
approximately $10 billion per year for the federal government.
As marijuana is illegal on the federal level, the federal government does not collect
a tax on its illicit sales, although the tax revenue raised in states it has been legalized
are significant (roughly $1 billion for FY2018).639
Cognizant of these figures, this model would suggest considering the following
excise tax increases:
• Increasing federal tobacco taxes by 300%, raising a total of $42 billion per
year (assuming consistent demand).
• Alcohol, in all forms, would be taxed per proof gallon, which is the method
proposed by the Congressional Budget Office. Recommending a flat tax of
$16 per proof gallon, they concluded that such a tax would equal about 25
cents per ounce of alcohol (29.57ml).640 This tax increase was estimated to net
an additional $9 billion per year to total $19 billion on all alcohol sales taxes.
As with tobacco, this model would suggest a 300% increase, arriving at a tax
of $48 per proof gallon. Assuming consistent demand and sales volume, this
would raise $57 billion annually.
Luxury excise tax: this model would also suggest the possibility of modest taxes on
high-end luxury items under the reasoning that if one is wealthy enough to afford
a private jet, exotic sports car or luxury yacht, a 10% tax increase would not be a
313
The Next Giant Leap
prohibitively difficult expenditure. The U.S. luxury goods market in 2018 was $191.8
billion. A 10% tax of that sum would net $19.1 billion.
Revenue Totals
• Increased excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco, along with new excise taxes
on marijuana and luxury goods would net $166.1 billion.
These measures, in total, would net $675 billion annually, which would be
sufficient to fund Universal Energy in its current form for 10 years, which
thereafter could be used to pay off our national debt.
Considering that this sum is merely half of our total military spending over the
past decade, 15% of our total federal spending over the past decade, and less than
5% of our annual Gross Domestic Product, it’s a small price to pay for a world
without resource scarcity, resource conflict, climate change and the endless
maladies brought by scarcity and the zero-sum games – and corresponding
conflicts – it fuels.
314
The Next Giant Leap
Universal Energy is modular by design. Each of its technologies can have the
capability to connect to one another in any configuration desirable, thus any
realistic cost estimate will be determinant on the ultimate nature of configuration.
For sake of argument in providing a baseline figure, this model will make several
assumptions about the scale and nature of implementation, cognizant of the
implementation strategy for public resources and proposed legal and social
mechanisms we reviewed earlier in the Appendix. Due to the nature of the
assumptions required to make such an estimate, this model will be more
generalized in approach as opposed to seeking exact estimates that could shift
based on future circumstances, but we’ll try to be as reliable as possible based on
the factual data at hand, and seek further to overestimate than come up short.
ELECTRICITY GENERATION
If we were to leave our current capacity intact (and gradually phase out old power
systems, starting with the oldest and dirtiest first), Universal Energy would
initially need to generate 8.34 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity. This figure
can and should scale over time, but it functions as a sufficient target for now.
315
The Next Giant Leap
Further, this estimate will also include the necessary infrastructure to produce
sufficient fuel, water and food to provide for our respective needs, as well as
desalinate sufficient water to store sufficient energy in the National Aqueduct to
comprise its battery and power-generating functions. These estimates will be
assessed as a separate consideration on top of electricity generation within the
resource production section.
Lastly, while this estimate will make assumptions about the nature of Universal
Energy’s implementation, it’s important to note that we will be minimizing
assumptions of future cost reductions as investment in Universal Energy’s
technologies expands. This price estimate, consequently, will be based on the
estimated price today in “overnight costs” – the cost of the construction if it were
purchased and deployed as a standalone unit. It will not assess cost reductions
over time through improvements in manufacturing, lowered energy costs,
subsidies or levelized costs – costs incurred and offset by revenue earned over the
lifetime of an energy-generating asset.
316
The Next Giant Leap
With this clarified, we’ll proceed from here to review Universal Energy’s cost
estimate in full. As the ultimate appropriateness of each of the energy-generating
technologies will vary based on geographical region, proximity to coastlines,
highways and cities, we will break this estimate down in terms of units of 100
billion kilowatt-hours generated per year, roughly 1/85th of Universal Energy’s
foundational target.
We will refer to this 100 billion kilowatt-hour figure as an “Energy Unit,” which
broken down on a daily basis, comprises 273.97 million kilowatt-hours generated
per-day over a 365-day year.
317
The Next Giant Leap
Integrated Renewables
• One square foot of solar generates 18.7 watts under peak sun. That’s 18.7
watt-hours per hour, 82.9 watt-hours per day, and 30 kilowatt-hours every
year.
• One square meter of solar generates 201.28 watts under peak sun. That’s
201.28 watt-hours per hour, 1,006.4 watt-hours per day, and 367.3
kilowatt-hours every year.
• At $1.44 per watt, one square foot of solar panels would cost $26.93. One
square meter would cost $289.84.
A 100 billion kilowatt-hours per year Energy Unit translates to 273.97 million
kilowatt-hours per day, or 273.97 billion watt-hours. Divided by 82.9 watt-hours
per square foot of solar panel surface, and that comes to 3.3 billion square feet of
solar panels (118.5 square miles / 306.91 square km). At a cost of $26.93 per square
foot, that translates to $88.87 billion.
Total cost: $88.87 billion per 100 billion kilowatt-hour Energy Unit.
Wind Power: The nominal, non-levelized cost of wind power in the United States
is estimated to be between $750-$950 per kilowatt of power-generating capacity,
with a non-levelized cost of $0.07 per kilowatt-hour generated.644 This figure,
318
The Next Giant Leap
ostensibly, excludes the cost of land purchase, wiring and grid connection, which
would present significant externalities on top of equipment purchases. While this
estimate places greater emphasis on the promise of solar power within
renewables (due to myriad factors ranging from limited locational deployment,
unique impact on migratory wildlife, potential fire risks and damage during
storms), its promise is nonetheless substantial in certain instances – all the more
so if looked to as a supplemental energy source that’s connected to the National
Aqueduct or integrated within highway medians.
• Capacity factor is the actual output of a power source over a period of time
as a proportion of the turbine’s maximum capacity. For example: if a 1-
megawatt turbine generates power at an average of 0.3 megawatts, its
capacity factor is 30%. According to the Energy Information
Administration, the average capacity factor for wind is approximately
34.6% for 2018.645
Assuming the EIA’s average capacity factor of 34.6% for wind turbines, we would
need a daily energy-generating capacity of 790 million kilowatt-hours. Broken
down over a 24-hour day, that’s a power generating capacity of 32.91 million
kilowatts per-hour.
At a cost of $850 per kilowatt generating capacity, that would cost $27.97 billion
per 100 billion kilowatt-hour Energy Unit.
According to Robert Hargraves, author of Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal and
a foremost expert on thorium energy, the cost of a 100-megawatt reactor
is estimated to run $200 million.646 This figure assesses end-unit manufacturing
cost, pre-learning ratio (reductions in manufacturing costs every time the number
of manufactured units doubles, due to process improvements, gleaned expertise,
319
The Next Giant Leap
etc.). Naturally, this figure would differ in actual implementation as reactor cost
would hinge on myriad factors: scalable generating capacity, non-included cost
reductions in mass-manufacturing, regulatory requirements and ultimate
funding sources, but it’s an empirical baseline figure to begin our cost assessment.
Although LFTRs are more efficient than traditional nuclear reactors, we won’t
assess a higher operating capacity than the 92.5% of traditional nuclear power,647
and include that figure for our estimations here. That would mean a 100-
megawatt LFTR would generate 92,500 kilowatt-hours per hour (92.5 megawatt-
hours). That translates to 2.22 million kilowatt-hours generated per day (810.3
million kilowatt-hours per year).
Sticking to our daily figure for sake of consistency, generating 273.97 million
kilowatt hours per day would require 124 LFTRs. At a cost of $200 million per
100-megawatt reactor, that would come to a total of $24.68 billion per 100 billion
kilowatt-hour Energy Unit.
In doing so, we'll assume that the non-solarized aspects of the pipeline would cost
similar to the largest oil pipelines today. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, oil
pipelines cost an average of $6.5 million per mile to construct.648
320
The Next Giant Leap
With these costs in mind, we'll be making a few assumptions, mindful of the fact
that National Aqueduct pipelines would be factory prefabricated, land wouldn't
need to be purchased (as pipelines would be installed on publicly owned roads
or under high voltage power lines) and regulatory approval would be
streamlined. Cognizant of this, we will assume:
• That materials for the National Aqueduct will cost four times higher than
for oil pipelines, as pipelines would include in-pipeline turbines +
thermoelectric generators. That translates to an estimated $3.57
million/mile for material costs. This figure does not include the cost of solar
panels.
• That labor for the National Aqueduct will cost half of oil pipelines as all
aspects of the system would be factory prefabricated, coming to an
estimated $1.39 million/mile.
• That miscellaneous costs would be half that of oil pipelines for the
reasons listed above, coming to $1.2 million/mile.
With that established, let's determine how many miles of pipeline arrays we
would conceptually require.
The U.S. consumes a total of 2,842 cubic meters of water per-person, per year,
coming to 243.25 trillion gallons (920.8 billion cubic meters) across a society of 324
321
The Next Giant Leap
million people.649 On a per-day basis, that comes to 667 billion gallons (2.53 billion
cubic meters).
For initial deployment we will estimate that the National Aqueduct will store
slightly less than one half of that daily volume of water (300 billion gallons – 1.135
billion cubic meters) at any given moment in time. 180 billion gallons (60%) would
be stored in pipeline arrays, with the rest in storage tanks (681.36 billion cubic
meters). The system would be constantly resupplied thereafter through coastal
CHP Plants.
Based on these figures, we'll start our assessment first with cost, and then shift
focus to calculating output.
Cost of Pipelines:
The volume of a 24" pipe is 23.5 gallons for every one foot of pipe, which
translates to 124,080 gallons for every mile of pipeline650 or 1.11 million gallons
for an array of nine. (2,626 cubic meters per kilometer). If 180 billion gallons are
stored in pipelines, that would require us to have 161,186 miles (259,404 km) of
pipelines. (Assembled in arrays of six, that figure would drop to 26,864 miles
(43,233 km)).
As each pipeline is estimated to run $6.16 million per mile, that span would
cost $996 billion.
Cost of Storage:
Current estimates for commercial water tanks today come to around $1 per
gallon651 ($264.17 per cubic meter). However, National Aqueduct water storage
tanks would differ from commercial storage tanks today in terms of insulation
and electric UV sterilization, so we’ll assess a 40% higher end-unit cost. This
would come to roughly $1.40 per gallon ($369.84 per cubic meter).
As 60% of the 300 billion gallons within the National Aqueduct would be within
pipeline arrays, the remaining water placed in storage would be 120 billion
gallons (454.25 million cubic meters). At $1.40 per gallon, that comes to $168
billion.
322
The Next Giant Leap
Control:
As the National Aqueduct does not conceptually exist outside of this writing,
effectively determining what it would cost to build the control component is
prohibitively difficult. As such, we'll assume the cost of the control system and
infrastructure would be $30 billion.
Electricity due to internal water flow: according to Lucid Energy, a 24" pipe
generates 18 kilowatts of power per-turbine with a flow rate of 24 million gallons
per day652 (90,849 cubic meters). Assuming a constant flow rate, over a 24-hour
day, that comes to 423 kilowatt-hours generated per-turbine, per-day.
10 feet, by a span distance of 26,864 miles, comes to a surface area of 1.418 billion
square feet (131.73 million square meters). At 82.9 watt-hours per day, this would
generate 117.6 million kilowatt-hours per day, or 42.92 billion kilowatt-hours
per year, at an additional cost of cost of $38.2 billion.
323
The Next Giant Leap
Electricity due to hot water inside pipelines: To assess the potential energy in
the hot water inside pipeline arrays and storage tanks, we'll base our calculations
on the following assumptions: that the 300 billion gallons (1.135 billion cubic
meters) stored in the National Aqueduct would be heated to 200 °F (94 °C ), with
a national average outside temperature of 55.7 °F (13.16 °C).654
• Total electricity output: 991 billion kilowatt-hours per year (2.715 billion
kilowatt-hours per day).
324
The Next Giant Leap
Based on the analysis and assumptions made earlier, the electricity totals for
Universal Energy are as follows. (One Energy Unit equals 100 billion kilowatt-
hours generated annually).
Electricity Breakdown
325
The Next Giant Leap
Resource Production
After covering the cost of electricity generation, we'll shift gears to the systems
that synthesize water and fuel. In doing so, we won't be estimating their
implementation in greater CHP Plants (which would be an ideal approach). This
is because cost figures for CHP Plants are not yet present. Instead, we’ll estimate
the cost of building these systems on a standalone basis (with the exception of
water desalination facilities without internal power plants) – even though this
would translate to higher costs in this estimate.
As commercial resources, food and materials are not included in this estimate as
the technical bar for implementation is far lower with Universal Energy’s
infrastructure in place. Additionally, their cost depends wholly on scale and
sophistication, respectively, of the agricultural setup and material being
produced.
326
The Next Giant Leap
Seawater Desalination
Most modern desalination facilities today are in the Middle East. Although they
are capable of desalinating immense volumes of seawater, they generally are
paired with internal power plants. This makes their construction significantly
more expensive than desalination facilities would be within CHP Plants and
makes it a bit tougher to determine standalone costs by themselves.
• The largest desalination facility in the world is currently the Ras Al Khair
Plant in Saudi Arabia.657 It has the capacity to produce 270.8 million
gallons of water per day (1.025 million cubic meters) via both multistage
flash and reverse osmosis. That translates to 98.8 billion gallons of water
per year (375 million cubic meters).658 It cost $7.2 billion to construct, and
is also a 2,400 megawatt power plant.659
• The Jebel Ali facility in the United Arab Emirates outputs 140 million
gallons of water per day via multistage flash distillation (530,000 cubic
meters).660 That translates to 51.1 billion gallons a year (193.4 million cubic
meters). The facility cost $2.72 billion to construct, and is also a 1,400
megawatt power station.661
• The Fujairah power and desalination plant in the United Arab Emirates
cost $1.2 billion to construct. It generates 656 megawatts of power and
outputs 100 million gallons of water per day (378,500 cubic meters). Over
a year, that comes to 36.5 billion gallons a year (138.17 million cubic
meters).662
327
The Next Giant Leap
billion to construct whereas Ras Al Khair cost $7.2 billion – but Ras Al Khair has
a 2,400-megawatt generator that powers the facility and Fujairah's power plant
only outputs 656 megawatts. The power generating potential of Ras Al Khair is
nearly four times higher, but in terms of seawater desalination (270 million gallons
daily versus 100 million), its output is only 2.7 times higher. As Universal Energy's
desalination facilities would come paired with LFTRs, our cost estimate must
separate out the cost of traditional power generation.
According to the EIA, a Natural Gas-fired Combined Cycle power plant (Adv
Gas/Oil Comb Cycle CC) has an overnight cost of $1,080 per kilowatt for a 429
megawatt variant.664 That means a 429 megawatt power plant would cost $463.2
million to construct, or roughly $1.08 million per megawatt.665
While construction costs likely vary in the Middle East, we'll nonetheless stick to
this cost figure in the absence of more reliably specific data. Additionally, as the
Ras Al Khair facility is both multistage flash and reverse osmosis
(disproportionally increasing its cost), whereas Jebel Ali and Fujairah are strictly
multistage flash, we'll only use Jebel Ali and Fujairah to estimate what a
standalone desalination facility would cost if it didn't include a power plant.
Jebel Ali: $2.72 billion to construct with a 1,400-megawatt power station. Annual
output: 51.1 billion gallons (193.4 million cubic meters).
At $1.08 million per megawatt, we'll estimate that $1.51 billion of the construction
cost was for power generation. This would bring the estimated construction cost,
sans-power, to $1.2 billion.
Desalination costs for one year of output: $0.023 per gallon / $6.20 per cubic
meter.
At $1.08 million per megawatt, we'll estimate that $709 million of the construction
cost was for power generation. This would bring the estimated construction cost,
sans-power, to $493 million.
328
The Next Giant Leap
Desalination costs for one year of output: $0.013 per gallon / $3.67 per cubic
meter.
We determined earlier that as the U.S. consumes 239.5 trillion gallons per year
(920.8 billion cubic meters), which translates to 667 billion gallons of water per
day. The National Aqueduct is intended to hold slightly less than half of that
figure at any given moment in time (300 billion gallons), with 180 billion gallons
(60%) in pipeline arrays, and the rest (40%) in storage tanks.
Hydrogen production
Gasoline has a specific energy of 46.4 megajoules per kilogram.669 One gallon of
gasoline has a mass of roughly 2.8 kilograms. As such, 140.43 billion gallons of
329
The Next Giant Leap
gasoline would have a mass of 393.2 billion kilograms. At 46.4 megajoules per
kilogram, that comes to 8.47 billion megajoules.
Dividing $114 million by 50,000 kilograms daily output, we'll assess that the
capital costs of a hydrogen production plant are $2,280 per kilogram of daily
production capability. As the United States would need 57.6 million kilograms of
compressed hydrogen to replace gasoline in our society, at $2,280 per kilogram of
daily production capacity, that comes to $131.33 billion.
Cost of Labor
Although labor cost was already included in the National Aqueduct’s price
estimate of $1.232 trillion, there are significant considerations that need to be
given to the labor forces inherent to Universal Energy’s implementation. These
occur not only in terms of raw cost, but also the long-term management and
upgrades as part of a long-term shift towards an advanced energy economy. In
one vein of thinking, it would be of course possible to utilize the ranks of our
uniformed service members and leverage their manpower and logistical expertise
to build systems that actually present an effective defense against the underlying
causes of conflict. Another vein of thinking would bear mention of the need to
train larger segments of our workforce towards an advanced-manufacturing
economy, which generates tangible wealth far more than service-based
occupations. Another still might leverage the technically literate students/recent
graduates of universities and trade schools as a primary option.
All of these approaches are valid, and each present unique options across the wide
spectrum of vocational opportunities made possible by an investment in
Universal Energy and the upgrades it installs on our economic foundations. As
330
The Next Giant Leap
Rather than estimate the nuanced specifics of how much this labor would cost (as
nearly all of it would hinge on assumptions), we’ll instead take a more general
approach and estimate labor costs as a percentage of the total framework.
Recognizing that labor costs are already included within the “overnight costs” of
each of the systems described herein, we’ll estimate that the residual labor costs
for all aspects of installation and management for the initial scale of
implementation will come to 30% of the total estimated $5 trillion “overnight”
price tag for Universal Energy. This comes to a total estimated labor cost of $1.5
trillion.
GRAND TOTALS
331
The Next Giant Leap
As this estimate hinged on several assumptions, care was taken to minimize any
assumed reductions in future costs that would almost certainly be present once
Universal Energy was implemented. The cost of any system at scale always costs
less than the overnight cost, all the more so with systems implemented on a
massive scale. There are several additional factors that would drive costs down
even lower.
Further, learning ratio applies especially in the case of Universal Energy’s because
most of the framework’s technologies are in their technical infancy and stand to
enjoy substantial improvements through greater investment and research. Their
overnight cost may be $5 trillion today, but over time – and especially with
purchase orders on scale – that figure will drop as it has in every other industry.
Yet as it's prohibitively difficult to accurately assess what these reductions might
look like in actuality, they were not incorporated in the pricing estimate.
However, in reality they would be significant.
CHP Plants: CHP Plants are the envisioned approach for large-scale
implementation of Universal Energy's power, hydrogen fuel and fresh water
resources. As they can use the waste/excess energy from one facility to power the
functions of another in the same physical footprint, the energy costs to perform
functions like water desalination and hydrogen production drop drastically. Just
as importantly, the capital expenses of constructing power plants incorporates the
cost of buying land. By building multiple systems within the same facility, the
cost of land is proportionally shared – as are the costs of construction. This would
make CHP Plants less expensive than the estimated costs to build each system
standalone.
332
The Next Giant Leap
If we're able to reach Universal Energy's target of 2 cents per kilowatt hour, that's
hundreds of billions of dollars that businesses save when building products they
take to market – systems behind Universal Energy being no exception. That's
billions of dollars that longer need to be incorporated in the per-unit delivery cost
of energy and resource production systems, which in turn presents billions of
dollars in cost savings to their large-scale purchase and implementation.
Direct energy sales: even at drastically reduced rates of 2 cents per kilowatt-hour,
the sale of 8.34 trillion kilowatt-hours returns a tidy sum – some $168.8 billion
annually, 1.68 trillion per decade. Over time, this can and will offset the costs of
Universal Energy’s infrastructure. In conjunction with foreign sales through The
Public Interest Company, this could reach a faster point of profitability as global
adoption expands.
With the presence of these cost reductions in practice, it is possible if not likely
that the present estimate for Universal Energy's implementation is skewed
higher. In this case, any cost savings we can obtain along the way, should this
model be implemented, would simply be "gravy" on top and allow us to increase
any scale of implementation in kind.
333
The Next Giant Leap
334
The Next Giant Leap
In this link, p53 equals "page 53." As the "#" modifier in a URL points to a named
link, the PDF file will load fine with that URL, enabling easy retrieval of the data
in question. Further, virtual sources enable rapid “searching” via most web
browsers of PDF viewers – providing easy retrieval of relevant data points. PDF
+ virtual copies of The Next Giant Leap will have direct links in the citations.
For whitepapers and data PDFs of a short or self-explanatory nature, or where the
general facts are provided on the cover/summary/abstract, or documents
designed to provide 'general conceptual information' as opposed to a specific
factual citation, no page numbers are included in the URL structure. If you find a
citation that you believe to be 1) broken (dead link), 2) unclear, 3) misinterpreted,
please get in touch and let me know so it can be fixed.
335
The Next Giant Leap
336
The Next Giant Leap
While hard facts and technical parameters are nigh-exclusively sourced from
objectively reputable sources (academic, public sector, industry whitepapers and
data sheets), this writing also includes supporting facts from supplemental
sources, including journalistic outlets, technical publications and, in very limited
occurrences, opinion pieces.
Consequently, this writing will approach sources under the following reasoning:
Flagship journalism: these sources include mainstream news media outlets with
established pedigrees. These include Associated Press/Reuters and any news
337
The Next Giant Leap
outlets who retain membership in the AP. This can also include other media
sources if the material is well-written and cited appropriately.
[Note: This author and writing refuses to entertain the false and disingenuous
trend of declaring legitimate media “fake news” if they print facts inconvenient
to an ideological or political narrative.]
338
The Next Giant Leap
has proven quite adept at ensuring adherence to facts, it's open-edit policy makes
it less desirable for direct citations of specific, novel facts. However, for general
topics and scientific concepts, it is highly effective at providing background
information for people unfamiliar with the subject material in question. For this
reason, relevant Wikipedia articles may be included in certain citations to provide
clearer context.
Think tanks are generally cited as reliable even if they have an ideological slant,
as they have demonstrated a sufficient degree of ethics when reporting. This
writing generally considers these sources reliable and factual, unless cause is
presented to believe otherwise.
Third-party blogs and statistics services: these sources include blogs like Nate
Silver's Fivethirtyeight and statistics services like Statista and Brilliantmaps (for
global population in urban environments). In the limited areas they are used, they
are considered reliable and factual, barring any reason to believe otherwise.
339
The Next Giant Leap
340
The Next Giant Leap
341
The Next Giant Leap
342
The Next Giant Leap
In regards to the copyright of this work, any part may be reproduced without
permission so long as the reproduction is a) non-commercial, b) if commercial,
that such reproduction is only a segment consisting of no more than 20% of the
total commercial work and cited appropriately to https://nextgiantleap.org, AND
c) the work in cases A and B are objectively in the public interest.
If you are a copyright holder of any of the copyrighted works used herein and
wish to have them excluded from future use, simply get in touch with me and I
will oblige and recommission original works under my own copyright based on
original data. No intent is made to capitalize on any reserved copyright, if your
work was included, it was done so exclusively because it was of requisite quality
to help explain concepts in the public interest in accordance with the Fair Use
Doctrine.
343
The Next Giant Leap
344
The Next Giant Leap
Special Thanks
Kelsey Morrison, my lovely wife. Thank you deeply for your years of support.
345
The Next Giant Leap
346
The Next Giant Leap
1Smithsonian Magazine. “Greenleand lost 12.5 billion tons of ice in a single day.” 5 August,
2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/greenland-lost-record-breaking-125-
billion-tons-ice-single-day-180972808/
New York Times. “Iceland Mourns Loss of a Glacier by Posting a Warning About Climate
Change.” L. Holson. 19 August, 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/world/europe/iceland-glacier-funeral.html
2BBC News: “A looming mass extinction caused by humans.” G. Vince. 1 November 2012.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121101-a-looming-mass-extinction
3BBC News. “Amazon Fires: Record number burning in Brazil rainforest – space agency.” 21
August, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49415973
The Atlantic Magazine. “California’s wildfires are 500 percent larger due to climate change.” R.
Meyer. 16 July, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/climate-change-
500-percent-increase-california-wildfires/594016/
5BBC News. “Australia fires: a visual guide to the bushfire crisis.” 6 January, 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-50951043. A point of note: several causes of
these fires were direct human action, namely felony arson. This has been pointed to as
reason to discredit climate change’s role in Australian wildfires, which is both
disingenuous and categorically false – arson, and man-caused fires have persisted for
millennia, yet the reason such fires now encompass wide swaths of the Australian
continent is because of the aggravating factors of climate change, namely drought and
hotter conditions that enable wildfires to spread faster and burn drier material.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/australia-fires-how-climate-change-has-intensified-the-
deadly-bushfires/
347
The Next Giant Leap
6Council of Foreign Relations. “A global report on the decline of democracy.” 17 April, 2018.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/press/2018-04-17/global-report-decline-democracy
7Washington Post. “17 ways the unprecedented migrant crisis is reshaping our world.” A.
Taylor, 20 June, 2015.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/06/20/17-ways-the-
unprecedented-migrant-crisis-is-reshaping-our-world/
9“The Long Peace” is a term defining the post-WWII era of lasting peace after the defeat of
Axis powers. It was first coined by John Lewis Gaddis in the International Security journal,
Vol. 10, No. 4 (Spring, 1986), pp. 99-142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2538951
10Union of Concerned Scientists. “North Korea, reports and multimedia.” 18 December, 2017.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/north-korea-basics
11At the time of this writing, the United States is either involved, or threatens to be
involved, with state-level conflict against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, along with
several other conflicts against non-state actors in furtherance of the “Global War on
Terror.”
Deutsche Welle. “Nicolas Maduro tells military to 'be ready' for potential US military action.” 5
May, 2019. https://p.dw.com/p/3HwPL
BBC News. “Iran attack: US Troops targeted with ballistic missiles.” 8 January, 2020.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954
12Radioactive dating tells us that modern humans evolved approximately 200,000 years
ago, although some sources suggest as long as 300,000.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/humans-change-world
Nature Journal. “Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history.” E. Callaway. 7
June, 2017. https://www.nature.com/news/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossil-claim-rewrites-our-
species-history-1.22114
13Most sources estimate 1900 as having a population of just over 1.5 billion.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/
348
The Next Giant Leap
17U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization report. “State of the world’s forests, 2012.”
http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3010e/i3010e.pdf#p23,p25,p28
The Atlantic. “It Will Take Millions of Years for Mammals to Recover From Us”. E.
19
22 World Wildlife Fund. “Living Planet Report 2018: Aiming Higher” p54.
25The Guardian. “Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals –
study.” D. Carrington. 21 May, 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-
but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. “The
Biomass Distribution on Earth.” Y. Bar-On, R. Philips, R. Milo. 21 May, 2018.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506
349
The Next Giant Leap
26The Guardian. “Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals –
study.” D. Carrington. 21 May, 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-
but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. “The
Biomass Distribution on Earth.” Y. Bar-On, R. Philips, R. Milo. 21 May, 2018.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506
27The Guardian. “Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals –
study.” D. Carrington. 21 May, 2018.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-
but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. “The
Biomass Distribution on Earth.” Y. Bar-On, R. Philips, R. Milo. 21 May, 2018.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506
31World Health Organization. “Lack of Sanitation for 2.4 Billion People is Undermining Health
Improvements.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/jmp-report/en/.
32World Health Organization. “Lack of Sanitation for 2.4 Billion People is Undermining Health
Improvements.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/jmp-report/en/.
350
The Next Giant Leap
35Newsweek. “The Race to Buy Up the World’s Water.” J. Interlandi. 8 October, 2010.
http://www.newsweek.com/race-buy-worlds-water-73893.
36Newsweek. “The Race to Buy Up the World’s Water.” J. Interlandi. 8 October, 2010.
http://www.newsweek.com/race-buy-worlds-water-73893.
37B. Gaybullaev, C., Su-Chin. “Changes in water volume of the Aral Sea after 1960” 1
December, 2012. 10.1007/s13201-012-0048-z JO - Applied Water Science ER.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.104566
38Lake Michigan has a surface area of 22,404 square miles (58,030 km3), and Lake Erie has a
volume of 116 cubic miles (480km3). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Michigan /
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Erie
40National Geographic. “Aral Sea’s Eastern Basin is Dry for the First Time in 600 years.” B.
Clark-Howard. 2 October, 2014.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141001-aral-sea-shrinking-drought-
water-environment/
NASA. “Getting at groundwater with gravity.” G. Hicks. Last updated 6 January, 2020.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/getting-at-groundwater-with-gravity
NASA. “Getting at groundwater with gravity.” G. Hicks. Last updated 6 January, 2020.
https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/getting-at-groundwater-with-gravity
351
The Next Giant Leap
National Geographic. “If You Think the Water Crisis Can’t Get Worse, Wait Until the
43
New York Times. “Beneath California Crops, Groundwater Crisis Grows.” J. Gillis, M. Richtel.
5 April, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/science/beneath-california-crops-
groundwater-crisis-grows.html?_r=0
National Geographic. “If You Think the Water Crisis Can’t Get Worse, Wait Until the
44
New York Times. “Beneath California Crops, Groundwater Crisis Grows.” J. Gillis, M. Richtel.
5 April, 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/science/beneath-california-crops-
groundwater-crisis-grows.html?_r=0
Washington Post. “California’s Terrifying Climate Forecast: It Could Face Droughts Nearly
Every Year.” D. Fears. 2 March, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-
environment/wp/2015/03/02/californias-terrifying-forecast-in-the-future-it-could-face-
droughts-nearly-every-year/?utm_term=.2c407783c5b8
45NCAR & UCAR News Center. “Climate change: Drought may threaten much of globe
within decades.” 19 October, 2010.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/news/Dai_Drought_UCAR.htm
46NASA. “Earth’s Freshwater Future: Extremes of Flood and Drought.” 13 June, 2019.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2881/earths-freshwater-future-extremes-of-flood-and-
drought/
New York Times. “Rural Water, Not City Smog, May be China’s Pollution Nightmare.” C.
47
South China Morning Post. “80 per cent of groundwater in China’s major river basins is unsafe
for humans, study reveals.” https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-
politics/article/1935314/80-cent-groundwater-chinas-major-river-basins-unsafe
D. Shemie, K. Vigerstol, M. Quan, et al. “China Urban Water Blueprint.” The Nature
Conservancy. 2016.
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Urban_Water_Blueprint_R
egion_China.pdf
352
The Next Giant Leap
New York Times. “Rural Water, Not City Smog, May be China’s Pollution Nightmare.” C.
48
South China Morning Post. “80 per cent of groundwater in China’s major river basins is unsafe
for humans, study reveals.” https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-
politics/article/1935314/80-cent-groundwater-chinas-major-river-basins-unsafe
D. Shemie, K. Vigerstol, M. Quan, et al. “China Urban Water Blueprint.” The Nature
Conservancy. 2016.
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Urban_Water_Blueprint_R
egion_China.pdf
49NASA. “NASA Satellites Unlock Secret to India’s Vanishing Water.” 12 August, 2009.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html
New York Times. “India’s Water Crisis.” Editorial board. 3 May, 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/opinion/indias-water-crisis.html
The Guardian. “Armed guards at India’s dams as drought grips country.” A. France-Presse. 2
May, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/02/armed-guards-at-indias-
dams-as-drought-grips-country
50New York Times. “India’s Water Crisis.” Editorial board. 3 May, 2016.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/opinion/indias-water-crisis.html
The Guardian. “Armed guards at India’s dams as drought grips country.” A. France-Presse. 2
May, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/02/armed-guards-at-indias-
dams-as-drought-grips-country
51The Times of India. “80% of India’s Surface Water May Be Polluted, Report by International
Body Says.” S. Deyl. 28 June, 2015.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/80-of-Indias-surface-
water-may-be-polluted-report-by-international-body-says/articleshow/47848532.cms
52The Hindu. “Untreated Sewage Flow is Killing Indian Rivers, Says New Study.” AFP. 6
March, 2013. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-in-school/untreated-sewage-flow-
is-killing-indian-rivers-says-new-study/article4480149.ece
353
The Next Giant Leap
53Forbes Magazine. “Oil and gas giants spend millions lobbying to block climate change policies.”
N. McCarthy. 25 March, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-
and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/
55
NASA. “Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate is Warming.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
56N. McCarthy. “Oil Firms Spend Millions on Climate Lobbying.” 26 May, 2019.
https://www.statista.com/chart/17467/annual-expenditure-on-climate-lobbying-by-oil-and-
gas-companies/
Image Source: The Economist Magazine. Data sources: Corinne Le Quéré, et al (2018).
57
Global Carbon Project (GCP); Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC).
60NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2016. National Centers for
Environmental Information, 2016. Note from source: for more information, visit U.S. EPA's
"Climate Change Indicators in the United States" at http://www.epa.gov/climate-
indicators.
62Data source: National Snow and Ice Data Center and the Colorado Center for
Astrodynamics Research. Image source: New York Times. “In the Arctic, the old ice is
disappearing.” J. White, K. Pierre-Louis. 14 May, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/14/climate/arctic-sea-ice.html
354
The Next Giant Leap
64Versions 1.1+ of The Next Giant Leap do not feature detailed focus on the state of oil
scarcity due to its post-COVID-19 price collapse. Oil scarcity is a future reality that
humanity must contend with, but the purpose of this writing is to solve resource scarcity –
not focus on the consequences of its existence. Consequently, the nature of future oil
scarcity will be touched upon in future posts on nextgiantleap.org.
Columbia University Earth Institute. “Climate change to exacerbate rising food prices.” A.
65
66International Food Policy Research Institute. “Food Security, Farming and Climate Change
to 2050. Scenarios, Results, Policy Options.” December, 2010.
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/127066/filename/127277.pdf#23
67Oxfam Issue Briefing. “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices. The costs of feeding a warming
world.” September 2012. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/03/22/climate-change-to-
exacerbate-rising-food-prices/
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/241131/ib-extreme-
weather-extreme-prices-05092012-en.pdf#p7
68Oxfam Issue Briefing. “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices. The costs of feeding a warming
world.” September 2012.
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/241131/ib-extreme-
weather-extreme-prices-05092012-en.pdf#p7
70The impact of climate change and resource scarcity, beyond imminent or already-present
incidents, reflects a timeline measured by years to decades. See: United Nations -
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/,
especially “Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
71
“Why We Fight” https://nextgiantleap.org/mindset/why-we-fight
72
“Why We Fight” https://nextgiantleap.org/mindset/why-we-fight
355
The Next Giant Leap
73
“Why We Fight” https://nextgiantleap.org/mindset/why-we-fight
74United States Military – Joint Forces Command. “The Joint Operating Environment – 2010.”
18 February, 2010. https://fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
78Picture of blast door in Minuteman-II missile silo, which has an intercontinental flight
time of minutes. The caption is a play on Domino’s Pizza, which reads “World-wide
delivery in 30 minutes or less – or your next one is free.”
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World-
wide_delivery_in_30_minutes_or_less.JPG
81Meadows (2), Randers and Behrens, The Limits to Growth, Potomac Associates Press.
http://collections.dartmouth.edu/teitexts/meadows/diplomatic/meadows_ltg-
diplomatic.html
84Background reading on sugar taxation and its former status as a luxury commodity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sugar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Act
356
The Next Giant Leap
86U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Most U.S. nuclear power plants were built
between 1970 and 1990." 27 April, 2017.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30972
87Electronic calculators emerged in the 1970's and weren't commercially prevalent until the
second half of the decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator#1970s_to_mid-1980s
Foreign Policy Magazine. “Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict.” M. Klare.
88
357
The Next Giant Leap
98National Geographic. “Renewable Energy Record Set in U.S.” S. Gibbens. 15 June, 2017.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/solar-wind-renewable-energy-record/
99New York Times: “Rooftop Solar Dims Under Pressure from Utility Lobbyists.” H. Tabuchi. 8
July, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/climate/rooftop-solar-panels-tax-credits-
utility-companies-lobbying.html
100NPR: “Texas Power Players Sit Out Political Opposition to Clean Power Plan.” 16 April, 2016.
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/16/474462519/texas-power-players-sit-out-political-
opposition-to-clean-power-plan
102Splinter magazine. “How much land is needed to power the U.S. with solar? Not much.” R.
Wile. 5 January, 2015. https://splinternews.com/how-much-land-is-needed-to-power-the-u-
s-with-solar-n-1793847493
103Electric Light & Power. “Underground vs. Overhead: Power Line Installation-Cost
Comparison and Mitigation.” 2 January, 2013.
http://www.elp.com/articles/powergrid_international/print/volume-18/issue-
2/features/underground-vs-overhead-power-line-installation-cost-comparison-.html
Forbes Magazine. “If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic
Waste?” M. Shellenberger, contributor. 23 May, 2018.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-
clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#175aff0e121c
The Verge Magazine. “More solar panels mean more waste and there’s no easy solution.” A.
106
358
The Next Giant Leap
109Energy Information Administration. “How much electricity does an American home use?”
Last updated 26 October, 2018. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3. (Note:
this table has been updated to reflect an average use of 10,927 kWh annually, but the
original 10,400 was included in formulas and will remain the benchmark until subsequent
versions of this writing are released. )
111Energy Information Administration. “How Much Electricity Does an American Home Use?”
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3
114CivicSolar. “How Does Heat Affect Solar Panel Efficiencies?” S. Fox. December, 2017.
https://www.civicsolar.com/article/how-does-heat-affect-solar-panel-efficiencies
115Inhabitat Magazine. “SOLAR ARK: World’s Most Stunning Solar Building.” A. Kriscenski.
14 January, 2008.
117Lazard Insights. “Levelized Cost of Energy and Levelized Cost of Storage 2018.” 8 November,
2018. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-
storage-2018/
359
The Next Giant Leap
Using Google Maps, I assessed the square footage of my local Lowe’s parking lot to be
120
121CivicSolar. “How Does Heat Affect Solar Panel Efficiencies?” S. Fox. December, 2017.
https://www.civicsolar.com/article/how-does-heat-affect-solar-panel-efficiencies
122Autoblog. “Enlil urban turbine uses traffic to generate electricity.” 28 June, 2018.
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/06/28/enl-l-urban-turbine-wind-from-traffic/
126World Meteorological Organization. “July matched, and maybe broke, the record for the
hottest month since analysis began.” 1 August, 2019.
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/july-matched-and-maybe-broke-record-hottest-
month-analysis-began
The New York Times. “How Hot Was It in Australia? Hot Enough to Melt Asphalt.” M.
127
Eniscuola Energy and Environment. “Road runoff and environmental pollution.” 22 March,
129
2017. http://www.eniscuola.net/en/2017/03/22/road-runoff-environmental-pollution/
Forbes Magazine. “The Reason Renewables Can’t Power Modern Civilization Is Because They
130
360
The Next Giant Leap
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-
cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to/#4932ce85ea2b
131J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134, 4, 1895–1897. Published 6 January, 2012
https://doi.org/10.1021/ja209759s
132Nature Energy 4, 495–503 (2019). “Building aqueous K-ion batteries for energy storage.”
Jiang, L., Lu, Y., Zhao, C. et al. doi:10.1038/s41560-019-0388-0.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0388-0#citeas
134Physics World. “Water-based batteries enable a green energy future.” J. Lewis. 28 May, 2019.
https://physicsworld.com/a/water-based-batteries-enable-a-green-energy-future/
Dade_County,_Florida
361
The Next Giant Leap
Los Angeles Times. “Blackout losses could top $100 million.” R Marosi. S Allen. 9
143
145Washington Post. “141 Deaths Later, Heat Wave Appears Over.” O. Munoz. 28 July, 2006.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-07-26-power-problems_x.htm
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Baseload_power
Foundation for Water & Energy Education. “How a Hydroelectric Project Can Affect a
149
River.” https://fwee.org/environment/how-a-hydroelectric-project-can-affect-a-river/
Quartz Magazine. “Most coal-fired power plants in the US are nearing retirement age.” T.
151
362
The Next Giant Leap
152Forbes Magazine. “The Thing About Thorium: Why The Better Nuclear Fuel May Not Get a
Chance.” M. Katusa. 16 February, 2012.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-
better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/#79d522b51d80
153
AIP Conference Proceedings 1659, 040001 (2015) “Advantages of Liquid Fluoride Thorium
Reactor in Comparison with Light Water Reactor.”
154 See pages 107-115 for detailed breakdown on countries investing in thorium
Center for Environmental Progress. “Are we headed for a solar waste crisis?” J. Desai, M.
Nelson. 21 June, 2017. http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-
headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis
159U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1.”
https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/palo1.html
Additional background reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station
363
The Next Giant Leap
Comparison with Light Water Reactor.” Nuclear Science Program, School of Applied Physics,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4916861
Comparison with Light Water Reactor.” Nuclear Science Program, School of Applied Physics,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4916861
163MIT Technology Review. “Meltdown-Proof Nuclear Reactors get a Safety Check in Europe.”
R. Martin. 4 September, 2015. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540991/meltdown-
proof-nuclear-reactors-get-a-safety-check-in-europe/
164Machine Design. “Thorium: A Safe Form of Clean Energy?” K. Sorensen. 16 March, 2010.
https://www.machinedesign.com/energy/thorium-safe-form-clean-energy
Comparison with Light Water Reactor.” Nuclear Science Program, School of Applied Physics,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4916861
168A. Ahmad, E. McClamrock, A. Glaser. "Neutronics calculations for denatured molten salt
reactors: Assessing resource requirements and proliferation-risk attributes." Annals of Nuclear
Energy. Volume 75. January, 2015. Pages 261-267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.014
364
The Next Giant Leap
M. Schaffer. "Abundant thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel: Important waste disposal and
weapon proliferation advantages." Journal of Energy Policy, Volume 60. September, 2013,
pages 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.062
The Economist Magazine. “Asgard’s fire. Thorium, an element named after the Norse god of
thunder, may soon contribute to the world’s electricity supply.” 12 April, 2014.
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2014/04/12/asgards-fire
174Forbes. “The Thing About Thorium: Why The Better Nuclear Fuel May Not Get A Chance.” M.
Katusa. 16 February, 2012. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-
thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/
water_reactor
365
The Next Giant Leap
180World Nuclear Association. “The Nuclear Fuel Cycle.” Last updated date: March, 2017.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-
cycle/introduction/nuclear-fuel-cycle-overview.aspx
181 Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 164
182 Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 164
183National Institute of Health. “Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Nuclear Accident for
Improving Safety of U.S. Nuclear Plants.” Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board; Division on
Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council. 29 October, 2014.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK253931/
World Nuclear Association. “How is uranium made into nuclear fuel?” No date or author
184
provided. https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/how-is-uranium-made-into-
nuclear-fuel.aspx
186
American institute of physics. “Searching for lost WWII-era uranium cubes from Germany.”
1 May, 2019. https://phys.org/news/2019-05-lost-wwii-era-uranium-cubes-germany.html
110th Congress. (2008). S. 3680 (110th): Thorium energy independence and security act of
2008. Retrieved from website: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s3680/text
U.S. Department of Energy. “Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom.” January, 1996.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f8/Closing_the_Circle_Report.pdf
366
The Next Giant Leap
191“Neptunium 237 and Americium: World Inventories and Proliferation Concerns.” D. Albright
and K. Kramer. July 10, 2005. http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-
reports/documents/np_237_and_americium.pdf#p14
192“Neptunium 237 and Americium: World Inventories and Proliferation Concerns.” D. Albright
and K. Kramer. July 10, 2005. http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-
reports/documents/np_237_and_americium.pdf#p14
198
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons: http://www.icanw.org/the-
facts/nuclear-arsenals/.
200S. Kim, S. Hong, R. Park. “Analysis of steam explosion under conditions of partially flooded
cavity and submerged reactor vessel.” 5 July, 2018.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/stni/2018/3106039/
367
The Next Giant Leap
202Molten salts in LFTRs can take varied forms. This source provides background reading
on different salt options and their benefits and drawbacks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Mixtures
203“An Overview of Thorium Utilization in Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles.” J. Maiorino, F.
D’Auria,, R. Akbari-Jeyhouni. Respectively: Federal University of ABC, CECS, Av. dos
Estados, 5001, Santo André-SP-Brazil, University of Pisa, GRNSPG-DESTEC, Largo L
Lazzarini, Pisa, Italy, Amirkabir University of Technology, Department of Energy
Engineering & Physics, Tehran, Iran.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325670177_An_Overview_of_Thorium_Utilizati
on_in_Nuclear_Reactors_and_Fuel_Cycles
204International Atomic Energy Agency. “Status Report – LFTR, Flibe Energy.” 28 July, 2016.
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/LFTR.pdf
WIRED magazine. “Uranium is So Last Century – Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke.” R.
Martin. 21 December, 2009. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 177-
208
257
368
The Next Giant Leap
WIRED magazine. “Uranium is So Last Century – Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke.” R.
Martin. 21 December, 2009. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
215Rare Earth Investing News. “Thorium: Rare Earth Liability or Asset?” M. Montgomery.
14 March, 2011. https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-
investing/rare-earth-investing/thorium-rare-earth-liability-or-asset/
Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 177-
216
257
369
The Next Giant Leap
217Thorium MSR Foundation. “The Flibe Energy LFTR49: the triple ace in nuclear GEN IV
design.” T. Wolters. 24 July, 2016. https://articles.thmsr.nl/the-flibe-energy-lftr49-the-triple-
ace-in-nuclear-gen-iv-design-ea9bffcd71dd
M. Schaffer. “Abundant thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel: Important waste disposal and
weapon proliferation advantages.” Journal of Energy Policy, Volume 60. September, 2013,
pages 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.062
218LERNER, L. (2012, JUNE 22). Nuclear fuel recycling could offer plentiful energy.
Argonne National Laboratory News. Retrieved from http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-
fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy
222S.F. Ashley, B.A. Lindley, G.T. Parks, et al, “Fuel Cycle modelling of open cycle thorium
fueled nuclear energy systems.” Annals of Nuclear Energy. V. 69, pp.314-330. July, 2014.
225“Neptunium 237 and Americium: World Inventories and Proliferation Concerns.” Table 1. D.
Albright and K. Kramer. July 10, 2005. http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-
reports/documents/np_237_and_americium.pdf#p14
226“Neptunium 237 and Americium: World Inventories and Proliferation Concerns.” D. Albright
and K. Kramer. July 10, 2005. http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-
reports/documents/np_237_and_americium.pdf#p14
370
The Next Giant Leap
227Progress In Nuclear Energy. Volume 106. pp. 204-214. “The U-232 production in thorium
cycle.” A. Wojciechowski. July, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2018.03.011
Chemical, and Biological. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 85.
229Science and Global Security, Volume 9. “U-232 and the proliferation resistance of u-233 in
spent fuel.” J. Kang, F. Hippel. P.1. http://fissilematerials.org/library/sgs09kang.pdf
230
Background reading on the REM unit of measuring radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man
231Science and Global Security, Volume 9. “U-232 and the proliferation resistance of u-233 in
spent fuel.” J. Kang, F. Hippel. P.1. http://fissilematerials.org/library/sgs09kang.pdf
233Atomic Archive. “Effects of radiation levels on the human body.” No date provided.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/radeffectstable.shtml
234International Atomic Energy Agency. “Safe Handling of Plutonium.” Safety series no 39,
1974.
https://gnssn.iaea.org/Superseded%20Safety%20Standards/Safety_Series_039_1974.pdf
235D. Makowski. “The impact of radiation on electronic devices with the specific consideration of
neutron and gamma radiation monitoring.” Technical University of Lodz. P. 10. https://jra-
srf.desy.de/e86/e575/e605/infoboxContent608/care-thesis-06-004.pdf#p10
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. “Nuclear Weapons Primer.” Figure 4-3,
236
237National Nuclear Laboratory, Government of the United Kingdom. “The Thorium Fuel
Cycle. An independent assessment by the UK National Nuclear Laboratory.” August, 2010.
https://www.nnl.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2019/01/nnl__1314092891_thorium_cycle_position_paper.pdf#p6
371
The Next Giant Leap
238“Neptunium 237 and Americium: World Inventories and Proliferation Concerns.” D. Albright
and K. Kramer. July 10, 2005. http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-
reports/documents/np_237_and_americium.pdf#p14
emptive_nuclear_strike
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. “Seawater yields first grams of yellowcake.” 13 June,
241
242Science and Global Security, Volume 9. “U-232 and the proliferation resistance of u-233 in
spent fuel.” J. Kang, F. Hippel. P.1. http://fissilematerials.org/library/sgs09kang.pdf#p1
material properties of Gilsocarbon and NBG-18 using random fields.” Journal of Nuclear
Materials 511. September, 2008. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.09.008
Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 177-257
372
The Next Giant Leap
T. Fei, D. Ogata, K. Pham, et al. (16 May 2008). "A modular pebble-bed advanced high
temperature reactor.” U.C. Berkeley Report UCBTH-08-001. 16 May, 2008.
http://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/08-001_PB-
AHTR_NE170_Design_Project_Rpt.pdf
M. Schaffer. “Abundant thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel: Important waste disposal and
weapon proliferation advantages." Journal of Energy Policy, Volume 60. September, 2013,
pages 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.062
Wired Magazine. “Uranium is so last century – enter thorium, the new green nuke.” R Martin.
21 December, 2009. https://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff-new-nukes/
Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 177-
248
257
Harvard Business Review. “Profit from the learning curve.” W. Hirschmann. January,
249
1964. https://hbr.org/1964/01/profit-from-the-learning-curve
251 Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 221
252 Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 220
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Molten Salt Reactor Experience Applicable to LS-VHTR
253
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Molten Salt Reactor Experience Applicable to LS-VHTR
254
255Forbes. “The Thing About Thorium: Why The Better Nuclear Fuel May Not Get A Chance.” M.
Katusa. 16 February, 2012. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-
thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/
373
The Next Giant Leap
Overview.” https://www.ornl.gov/msr
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Molten Salt Reactor Experience Applicable to LS-VHTR
Refueling.” C. Forsberg, ORNL, 18 April, 2006. Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment for background reading
and the National Laboratory Reports on MSRs here
https://www.ornl.gov/content/national-laboratory-reports-fhrs
257
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “Molten Salt Reactor Experience Applicable to LS-VHTR
Refueling.” C. Forsberg, ORNL, 18 April, 2006.
259South China Morning Post. “China hopes cold war nuclear energy tech will power warships,
drones.” S. Chen. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2122977/china-hopes-
cold-war-nuclear-energy-tech-will-power-warships
China Daily. “China among the countries looking to thorium as new nuclear fuel.” K. Wilson. 25
October, 2018.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201810/25/WS5bd11cf3a310eff3032846d1.html
Next Big Future. “China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster aircraft
carriers and in flying drones.” B. Wang. 6 December, 2017.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-
nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
260Next Big Future. “China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster
aircraft carriers and in flying drones.” B. Wang. 6 December, 2017.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-
nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
261China Daily. “China among the countries looking to thorium as new nuclear fuel.” K. Wilson.
25 October, 2018.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201810/25/WS5bd11cf3a310eff3032846d1.html
South China Morning Post. “China hopes cold war nuclear energy tech will power warships,
drones.” S. Chen. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2122977/china-hopes-
cold-war-nuclear-energy-tech-will-power-warships
374
The Next Giant Leap
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-
nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
262China Daily. “China among the countries looking to thorium as new nuclear fuel.” K. Wilson.
25 October, 2018.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201810/25/WS5bd11cf3a310eff3032846d1.html
South China Morning Post. “China hopes cold war nuclear energy tech will power warships,
drones.” S. Chen. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2122977/china-hopes-
cold-war-nuclear-energy-tech-will-power-warships
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-
nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
263Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (Netherlands). “NRG researches new nuclear
reactor concept.” https://www.nrg.eu/about-nrg/news-press/detail/article/nrg-doet-
onderzoek-voor-nieuw-type-kerncentrale-105.html
264The Thorium MSR Foundation. “‘Petten’ has started world’s first MSR-specific thorium fuel
irradiation experiments in 45 years.” G. Zwartsenberg. 18 August, 2017.
https://articles.thmsr.nl/petten-has-started-world-s-first-thorium-msr-specific-irradiation-
experiments-in-45-years-ff8351fce5d2
265The Thorium MSR Foundation. “‘Petten’ has started world’s first MSR-specific thorium fuel
irradiation experiments in 45 years.” G. Zwartsenberg. 18 August, 2017.
https://articles.thmsr.nl/petten-has-started-world-s-first-thorium-msr-specific-irradiation-
experiments-in-45-years-ff8351fce5d2
BBC Future Now. “Why India Wants to Turn Its Beaches Into Nuclear Fuel.” E. Gent. 18
266
Nuclear Asia. “Criticality of prototype fast breeder reactor pushed back further.” 30
268
Times of India. “Kalpakkam fast breeder reactor may achieve criticality in 2019.” PTI. 20
September, 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kalpakkam-fast-breeder-
reactor-may-achieve-criticality-in-2019/articleshow/65888098.cms
375
The Next Giant Leap
275Thorium Energy World. “Putin has Thorium Plans and Engages Russia’s Vast Nuclear
Establishment.” 31 August, 2016. http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/news/putin-has-
thorium-plans-and-engages-russias-vast-nuclear-establishment
New York Times. “Why ‘Green’ Germany Remains Addicted to Coal.” M. Eddy. 10 October,
276
2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal-climate.html
New York Times. “Why ‘Green’ Germany Remains Addicted to Coal.” M. Eddy. 10 October,
277
2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal-climate.html
376
The Next Giant Leap
281Washington Post. “It’s the first new U.S. nuclear reactor in decades. And climate change
has made that a very big deal.” C. Mooney. 17 June, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/17/the-u-s-is-
powering-up-its-first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-decades/?utm_term=.64da71742e42
284Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “Nuke on a truck: How Westinghouse is shrinking the nuclear power
plant.” A. Litvak. 31 December, 2018. https://www.post-
gazette.com/business/powersource/2018/12/31/westinghouse-microreactor-evinci-
generator-nuscale-power-general-atomics/stories/201812300007
286 NuScale. “NuScale wins U.S. DOE funding for its SMR Technology.”
https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/doe-partnership
287 The Oregonian. “Corvallis nuclear power company NuScale passes regulatory milestone.” B.
288Power Magazine. “DOE Designates Part of UAMPS SMR Plant for Research, Self-Power.” S.
Patel. 3 January, 2019. https://www.powermag.com/doe-designates-part-of-uamps-smr-
plant-for-research-self-power/
Developments.” https://aris.iaea.org/publications/smr-book_2016.pdf
377
The Next Giant Leap
294Market Research Future. “Micro Reactor Technology Market – Trends & Forecast, 2016-
2022.” May, 2017. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/micro-reactor-
technology-market-1128
ThinkProgress. “Taxpayers should not fund Bill Gates’ nuclear albatross.” J. Romm. 4
295
296Popular Mechanics. “The Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 'Green New Deal' Wants to Get Rid of
Nuclear Power. That's a Great Idea.” A. Thompson. 8 Feburary, 2019.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a26255413/green-new-deal-nuclear-
power/
297The Guardian. “Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option.” E. Rees. 23
June, 2011.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
298National Nuclear Laboratory, Government of the United Kingdom. “The Thorium Fuel
Cycle. An independent assessment by the UK National Nuclear Laboratory.”
http://www.nnl.co.uk/media/1050/nnl__1314092891_thorium_cycle_position_paper.pdf
299National Nuclear Laboratory, Government of the United Kingdom. “The Thorium Fuel
Cycle. An independent assessment by the UK National Nuclear Laboratory.”
http://www.nnl.co.uk/media/1050/nnl__1314092891_thorium_cycle_position_paper.pdf
300American Action Forum. “The Costs And Benefits Of Nuclear Regulation.” S. Batkins, 8
September, 2018. https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/costs-benefits-nuclear-
regulation/
378
The Next Giant Leap
ARS Technica. “Ballmer: iPhone has ‘no chance’ of gaining significant market share.” J.
304
305Computerworld. CW@50: Data storage goes from $1m to 2 cents per gigabyte. L. Mearian. 23
March, 2017. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3182207/cw50-data-storage-goes-
from-1m-to-2-cents-per-gigabyte.html
306MIT Technology Review. “Top U.S. Intelligence Official Calls Gene Editing a WMD Threat.”
A. Regalado. 9 February, 2016. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600774/top-us-
intelligence-official-calls-gene-editing-a-wmd-threat/
307Wired Magazine. “Why It’s So Hard To Wipe Out All of Syria’s Chemical Weapons.” B.
Barrett. 8 April, 2017. https://www.wired.com/2017/04/syria-sarin-chemical-weapons-
chlorine/
Salt Lake City Desert News (sourcing Toronto Globe and Mail). “Formula for Sarin is
Simple” https://www.deseretnews.com/article/411177/FORMULA-FOR-SARIN-IS-
SIMPLE.html
Comparison with Light Water Reactor.” Nuclear Science Program, School of Applied Physics,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4916861
309LERNER, L. (2012, JUNE 22). Nuclear fuel recycling could offer plentiful energy.
Argonne National Laboratory News. Retrieved from http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-
fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy
AIP Conference Proceedings 1659, 040001 (2015) “Advantages of Liquid Fluoride Thorium
310
AIP Conference Proceedings 1659, 040001 (2015) “Advantages of Liquid Fluoride Thorium
311
379
The Next Giant Leap
317
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. C. Clack, S. Qvist, J. Apt, et al.
“Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar.”
PNAS June 27, 2017 114 (26) 6722-6727; first published June 19, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610381114
New York Times. “Why ‘Green’ Germany Remains Addicted to Coal.” M. Eddy. 10 October,
318
2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/10/world/europe/germany-coal-climate.html
319“The benefits of nuclear flexibility in power system operations with renewable energy.” J.
Jenkins, Z. Zhou, R. Ponciroli, R. Vilim, F. Ganda, F. Sisternes, A. Botterrud. Applied
Energy 222. 15 July, 2018.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918303180
320Nuclear Energy Institute. “Only Nuclear Energy Can Save the Planet.” J. Goldstein, S.
Qvist. 11 January, 2019. https://www.nei.org/news/2019/only-nuclear-energy-can-save-the-
planet
Strata policy research. “U.S. Nuclear Power: Regulatory Barriers and Energy Potential.”
321
Institute for Energy Research. “Regulations Hurt Economics of Nuclear Power.” 19 January,
322
2018. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/nuclear/regulations-hurt-economics-
nuclear-power/
380
The Next Giant Leap
Wired Magazine. "How Boeing builds a 737 in just 9 days." J. Stewart. 27 September,
323
2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/boeing-builds-737-just-nine-days/
Timelapse of 737 construction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liZ0WEEsuz4
The Post and Courier. "Pace of 787 Dreamliner production quickens and Boeing's North
Charlson campus." D. Wren. 1 April, 2018.
https://www.postandcourier.com/business/pace-of-dreamliner-production-quickens-at-
boeing-s-north-charleston/article_02b584ea-3384-11e8-a3d4-ff9ca36dc590.html
324R. Robertson.; R. Briggs, O. Smith. “Two-Fluid Molten-Salt Breeder Reactor Design Study
(Status as of January 1, 1968).” (1970). ORNL-4528. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
doi:10.2172/4093364. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4093364-two-fluid-molten-salt-breeder-
reactor-design-study-status-january
325D. LeBlanc. “Molten salt reactors: A new beginning for an old idea.” Nuclear Engineering
and Design. 240 (6): 1644. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.12.033 /
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549310000191
C. Sona, D. Gajbhiye, P. Hule, et al. “High temperature corrosion studies in molten salt-
FLiNaK.”Journal of Corrosion Engineering, Science and Technology.” Vol 49, 2014 (issue
4). https://doi.org/10.1179/1743278213Y.0000000135
381
The Next Giant Leap
327
Transatomic Power. Technical White Paper. V.1.0.1. 14 March, 2014. P. 9.
https://nextgiantleap.org/sites/default/files/TAP_White_Paper.pdf#9
T. Fei, D. Ogata, K. Pham, et al. (16 May 2008). "A modular pebble-bed advanced high
temperature reactor.” U.C. Berkeley Report UCBTH-08-001. 16 May, 2008.
http://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/08-001_PB-
AHTR_NE170_Design_Project_Rpt.pdf
M. Schaffer. "Abundant thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel: Important waste disposal and
329
weapon proliferation advantages." Journal of Energy Policy, Volume 60. September, 2013,
pages 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.062
power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/neutron/neutron-
sources/
331
Background reading on AmBe neutron sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium-241#Neutron_source
382
The Next Giant Leap
production-electrolysis
production-electrolysis
344Alexandria Engineering Journal Volume 57, Issue 4, December 2018, Pages 2401-2413.
“Performance test of a sea water multi-stage flash distillation plant: Case study” A. El-Ghonemy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016817302697
345Röchling Industrial. “Plastic for lightweight and corrosion resistant Subsea Equipment.”
https://www.roechling.com/industrial/industries/oil-and-gas/subsea/
346Washington Post. “Salt of the Sea, as Easy as Evaporation.” T. Haspel. 9 April, 2013.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/salt-of-the-sea-as-easy-as-
evaporation/2013/04/08/400f610e-9018-11e2-9cfd-
36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html?utm_term=.631d3705738c
383
The Next Giant Leap
Science Times. “Hydrogen is the most comment element: here’s the reason why.” R.
349
353OPEC. “Intervention by OPEC Secretary General to the 3rd Gas Summit of the GECF.”
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/3180.htm
384
The Next Giant Leap
362W. Xiluan. G. Shi. “Flexible graphene devices related to energy conversion and storage.”
7 January, 2015.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270663402_Flexible_graphene_devices_related_t
o_energy_conversion_and_storage
363AIChE – The Global Home of Chemical Engineers. “Where Do Chemical Engineers Fit into
the Upstream Oil and Gas Industry?” K. Horner. 7 December, 2010.
https://www.aiche.org/chenected/2010/12/where-do-chemical-engineers-fit-upstream-oil-
and-gas-industry
364OPEC. “Intervention by OPEC Secretary General to the 3rd Gas Summit of the GECF.”
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/3180.htm
369
Information on the number of Energy Utilities operating in the United States.
https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/2018-Public-Power-Statistical-
Report-Updated.pdf
370
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “Electric Power Markets.”
https://www.ferc.gov/market-assessments/mkt-electric/overview.asp
385
The Next Giant Leap
371
Energy Information Administration. “What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?”
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
377South China Morning Post. “China hopes cold war nuclear energy tech will power warships,
drones.” S. Chen. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2122977/china-hopes-
cold-war-nuclear-energy-tech-will-power-warships
China Daily. “China among the countries looking to thorium as new nuclear fuel.” K. Wilson. 25
October, 2018.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201810/25/WS5bd11cf3a310eff3032846d1.html
Next Big Future. “China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster aircraft
carriers and in flying drones.” B. Wang. 6 December, 2017.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-
nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
386
The Next Giant Leap
378Next Big Future. “China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster
aircraft carriers and in flying drones.” B. Wang. 6 December, 2017.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-
nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
379 Next Big Future. “China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster
aircraft carriers and in flying drones.” B. Wang. 6 December, 2017.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-
nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html
380 Phys.org. “Thorium reactors may dispose of enormous amounts of weapons-grade plutonium.”
Masters, Gilbert (2004). Renewable and efficient electric power systems. New York:
381
Government of the United Kingdom. “Combined Heat and Power Quality Assurance
383
384Government of the United Kingdom. “Combined Heat and Power Incentives.” Last
updated 1 April, 2019. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/combined-heat-and-power-
incentives
385“Advantages of liquid fluoride thorium reactor in comparison with light water reactor.” 29
April, 2015. AIP Conference Proceedings 1659, 040001 (2015);
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4916861
387
The Next Giant Leap
391NASA. Global Climate Change. Vital Signs of the Planet. “Ice Sheets.”
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
393The Guardian. “Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former NASA chief
scientist.” H. Devlin. 8 June, 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/08/americans-under-siege-from-climate-
disinformation-former-nasa-chief-scientist
395Mining Congress Journal. “Air pollution and the coal industry.” J. Allen Overton, Jr. 1966.
P. 56. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6554117-Mining-Congress-Journal-
August-1965-Air.html#document/p6/a536518
Forbes Magazine. “Three Reasons Oil Will Continue To Run The World.” J. Clemente. 19
397
Nature science journal. “Sucking carbon dioxide from air is cheaper than scientists thought.” J.
398
399Nature science journal. “Commercial boost for firms that suck carbon from air.” D. Cressey.
14 October, 2015. https://www.nature.com/news/commercial-boost-for-firms-that-suck-
carbon-from-air-1.18551
400D. Keith, G. Holmes, D. St. Angelo, K. Heidel. “A Process for Capturing CO2 from the
Atmosphere.” 7 June, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.05.006
https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3
388
The Next Giant Leap
405MIT Technology Review. “Startups looking to suck CO2 from the air are suddenly luring big
bucks.” J. Temple. 2 May, 2019. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613447/startups-
looking-to-suck-c02-from-the-air-are-suddenly-luring-big-bucks/
407Phys.org. “Pressure mounts on aviation industry over climate change.” S. Wolf, M. Abbugao.
9 June, 2019. https://phys.org/news/2019-06-pressure-mounts-aviation-industry-
climate.html
Nature science journal. “Sucking carbon dioxide from air is cheaper than scientists thought.” J.
408
410Faucet Boss. “What is the average flow rate of faucets?” 27 November, 2018.
https://www.faucetboss.com/faucet-flow-rate/
411
Faucet Boss. “What is the average flow rate of faucets?” 27 November, 2018.
https://www.faucetboss.com/faucet-flow-rate/
412USGS. “What are zebra muscles and why should we care about them?”
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-are-zebra-mussels-and-why-should-we-care-about-
them?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
414See Appendix, A4, on page 315 for a breakdown of power-generating capacity and costs
thereof.
389
The Next Giant Leap
417Slate magazine. “Lake Mead Before and After the Epic Drought.” E. Holthaus. 25 July, 2014.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/07/lake_mead_before_and_aft
er_colorado_river_basin_losing_water_at_shocking.html.
421See Appendix, A4, on page 315 for a breakdown of power-generating capacity and costs
thereof.
424AG Funder News “The Economics of Local Vertical and Greenhouse Farming Are
Getting Competitive.” P. Tasgal, 3 April, 2019. https://agfundernews.com/the-economics-
of-local-vertical-and-greenhouse-farming-are-getting-competitive.html
425Tesla’s automotive factory is 5.3 million square feet (~492,380 square meters).
https://www.tesla.com/factory.
National Institute of Health. “Effect of growth promotants on the occurrence of endogenous and
synthetic steroid hormones on feedlot soils and in runoff from beef cattle feeding operations.”
Multiple authors. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22242694
427Vox Magazine. “This company wants to build a giant indoor farm next to every major city in
the world.” D. Roberts. 11 April, 2018. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/11/8/16611710/vertical-farms
390
The Next Giant Leap
428Vox Magazine. “This company wants to build a giant indoor farm next to every major city in
the world.” D. Roberts. 11 April, 2018. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/11/8/16611710/vertical-farms
429Agriculture, Technology and Investment News. “Vertical farming startup plenty acquires
bright aggrotech to scale.” E. Cosgrove. 13 June, 2017. https://agfundernews.com/breaking-
vertical-farming-startup-plenty-acquires-bright-agrotech-scale.html
430Vox Magazine. “This company wants to build a giant indoor farm next to every major city in
the world.” D. Roberts. 11 April, 2018. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/11/8/16611710/vertical-farms
431Vox Magazine. “This company wants to build a giant indoor farm next to every major city in
the world.” D. Roberts. 11 April, 2018. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
environment/2017/11/8/16611710/vertical-farms
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis Linked to
432
434Food and Drug Administration. “Consumer Info About Food From Genetically Engineered
Plants.” 1 April, 2018. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-new-plant-varieties/consumer-info-
about-food-genetically-engineered-plants
435Wired Magazine. “Monsanto’s newest GM crops may create more problems than they solve.”
B. Keim. 2 February, 2015. https://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-gmo-crop-controversy/
436 Michigan State University Extension. “Urban farming practices developed in France in 1850
still are used in cities today.” R. Bell. 20 June, 2013.
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/urban_farming_practices_developed_in_france_in_1850_sti
ll_are_used_in_citie
391
The Next Giant Leap
438AG Funder News “The Economics of Local Vertical and Greenhouse Farming Are
Getting Competitive.” P. Tasgal, 3 April, 2019. https://agfundernews.com/the-economics-
of-local-vertical-and-greenhouse-farming-are-getting-competitive.html
will-be-the-worlds-first-vertical-forest/
Dwell Magazine. “New York City Passes Bill Requiring Green Roofs on New Buildings.” J.
440
Thomas Publishing Company. “How Cities are Driving Growth and the Green Roofing
441
442Scientific American. “Why are asthma rates soaring?” V. Greenwood. 1 April, 2011.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-asthma-rates-soaring/
Background multimedia on China’s “Forest City.” BBC. “China’s Forest city.” 5 July,
443
2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-40498186/china-s-forest-city
Background multimedia on China’s “Forest City.” BBC. “China’s Forest city.” 5 July,
444
2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-40498186/china-s-forest-city
445Biofuels Digest. “10 Top Strategic Investors in Biofuels & Materials.” 6 June, 2011.
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/06/06/10-top-strategic-investors-in-biofuels-
materials/
392
The Next Giant Leap
451Belasco, Warren (July 1997). "Algae Burgers for a Hungry World? The Rise and Fall of
Chlorella Cuisine". Technology and Culture. 38 (3): 608–34.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3106856
455Smithsonian Magazine. “Scientists Turn Algae into Crude Oil in Less Than an Hour.” T.
Nguyen. 31 December, 2013. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientists-turn-
algae-into-crude-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/?no-ist
456B. Mooney. “The second green revolution? Production of plant-based biodegradable plastics.”
Biochem J (2009) 418 (2): 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20081769
457L. Christenson, R. Sims, “Production and harvesting of microalgae for wastewater treatment,
biofuels, and bioproducts.” Journal of Biotechnology Advances. Vol 29, Issue 6. December
2011. Pp 686-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2011.05.015
458BBC. “E. Coli Bacteria ‘Can Produce Diesel Biofuel’.” R. Morelle. 22 April, 2013.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22253746
459MIT Technology Review. “Making Gasoline from Bacteria.” N. Savage. 1 August, 2017.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/408334/making-gasoline-from-bacteria/
462J. Hopewell, R. Dvorak, E. Kosior. “Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities.” Philos
Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Jul 27; 364(1526): 2115–2126. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0311.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873020/
393
The Next Giant Leap
TechCrunch. “The reality of quantum computing could be just three years away.” J. Shieber. 7
469
394
The Next Giant Leap
473
N. Browning, R. Ramakrishnan, et al. “Genetic Optimization of Training Sets for Improved
Machine Learning Models of Molecular Properties.” J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2018, 9, 22, 6480-6488
October 29, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b02956
New Scientist. “New alloys could lead to next generation of nuke plant metals.” J. Emspak. 18
483
484Columbia University News. “Columbia Engineers Prove Graphene is the Strongest Material.”
21 July, 2008. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/07/graphene.html
395
The Next Giant Leap
Android Community. “Samsung Producing Graphene, the Material for Flexible Displays.” N.
486
487ComputerWorld. “Graphene sticky notes may offer 32GB capacity you can write on.” L.
Mearian. 18 December, 2013. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2486937/graphene-
sticky-notes-may-offer-32gb-capacity-you-can-write-on.html
488MIT Technology Review. “Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads.”
D. Talbot. 5 March, 2013. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511726/graphene-
antennas-would-enable-terabit-wireless-downloads/
489MIT Technology Review. “Graphene Antennas Would Enable Terabit Wireless Downloads.”
D. Talbot. 5 March, 2013. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511726/graphene-
antennas-would-enable-terabit-wireless-downloads/
491Q. Ke. J. Wang. “Graphene-based materials for supercapacitor electrodes – a review.” Journal
of Materiomics, Volume 2, Issue 1. March, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmat.2016.01.001
492Middle East Technical University, Turkey. Nanonotes. “Lithium-Ion batteries vs. graphene
batteries.” O. Kutun. 23 July, 2019. https://blog.metu.edu.tr/e207651/2019/07/23/lithium-ion-
batteries-vs-graphene-batteries/
396
The Next Giant Leap
Nanotechnology Journal. Volume 28, Number 44. “Graphene supercapacitor with both high
496
power and energy density.” H. Yang, S. Kannappan, A. Pandian, J. Hyung Jang, Y. Sung Lee
and W. Lu. 4 October, 2017. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6528/aa8948 Link
two: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28854156
497Union of Concern Scientists. “Electric Vehicles, batteries, cobalt, and rare earth metals.”
J. Goldman. 25 October, 2017. https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/electric-vehicles-
batteries-cobalt-and-rare-earth-metals
Scientific American. “More Recycling Won’t Solve Plastic Pollution.” M. Wilkins. 6 July,
498
2018. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/more-recycling-wont-solve-plastic-
pollution/
504
National Geographic. “Ocean Gyre.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ocean-gyre/
505Reuters. “World’s fish consumption unsustainable, U.N. warns.” T. Win. 9 July, 2018.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-fisheries-hunger/worlds-fish-consumption-
unsustainable-u-n-warns-idUSKBN1JZ0YA
508Geissdoerfer, Martin; Savaget, Paulo; Bocken, Nancy M. P.; Hultink, Erik Jan (2017-02-
01). “The Circular Economy – A new sustainability paradigm?” Journal of Cleaner Production.
143: 757–768. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.
397
The Next Giant Leap
509Ellen MacArthur Foundation. “Towards the Circular Economy: an economic and business
rationale for an accelerated transition.” Vol 1. Release date 2013.
https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-
MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf
Singularity Hub. “New progress in the biggest challenge with 3D printed organs.” E Gent. 7
511
398
The Next Giant Leap
Wired Magazine. "How Boeing builds a 737 in just 9 days." J. Stewart. 27 September,
518
2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/09/boeing-builds-737-just-nine-days/
Timelapse of 737 construction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liZ0WEEsuz4
519The Post and Courier. "Pace of 787 Dreamliner production quickens and Boeing's North
Charlson campus." D. Wren. 1 April, 2018.
https://www.postandcourier.com/business/pace-of-dreamliner-production-quickens-at-
boeing-s-north-charleston/article_02b584ea-3384-11e8-a3d4-ff9ca36dc590.html
520Seattle Times. "Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing, FAA certified the suspect
737 MAX flight control system." D. Gates. 17 March, 2019.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-
safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
Forbes Magazine. "Ex-Boeing 737 MAX Engineer says team was pressured to cut costs as
grounding continues." I. Togoh. 29 July, 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2019/07/29/ex-boeing-engineer-says-workers-
were-pressured-to-keep-costs-down-amid-737-max-grounding/#59d12a1d2e9a
New York Times. "Boeing 737 MAX factory was plagued with problems, whistle-blower
says." D Gates. 29 January, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/business/boeing-
737-max-whistleblower.html
WIRED magazine. “Meet The Man Who Built a 30-Story Building in 15 days.” L. Hilgers. 25
521
522
According to Budweiser and several sources, it takes Anheuser-Busch approximately 30
days to brew a bottle of beer. https://www.cnbc.com/2008/07/02/Brewing-the-King-of-
Beers.html / https://thefederalist.com/2015/02/18/making-the-case-for-budweiser/
2015. https://www.containerhomeplans.org/2015/07/the-cheapest-5-shipping-container-
homes-ever-built/
399
The Next Giant Leap
525Curbed magazine. “This Ravishing Mod Pad is Actually a $40k Container Home.” J. Xie. 30
July, 2015. http://www.curbed.com/2015/7/30/9935524/best-shipping-container-homes
Singularity Hub. “This 3D printed house goes up in a day for under $10,000.” V. Ramirez. 18
526
Singularity Hub. “This 3D printed house goes up in a day for under $10,000.” V. Ramirez. 18
527
Singularity Hub. “This 3D printed house goes up in a day for under $10,000.” V. Ramirez. 18
528
Singularity Hub. “See how this house was 3D printed in Just 24 hours.” V. Ramirez. 5
529
Inhabitat magazine. “Dubai debuts world’s first fully 3D-printed building.” C. DiStasio. 24
530
Singularity Hub. “This 3D printed house goes up in a day for under $10,000.” V. Ramirez. 18
531
532 PBS. “Breaking poverty: Crime, poverty often linked.” J. Mitchell, The Philadelphia Tribune.
18 September, 2018. https://whyy.org/articles/breaking-poverty-crime-poverty-often-
linked/
533 Congress for the New Urbanism. “The Little House That Could.” R. Steuteville. 3
Disasters Emergency Committee. “Haiti Earthquake Facts and Figures.” No date or author
534
provided. https://www.dec.org.uk/articles/haiti-earthquake-facts-and-figures
535NBC News Investigations. “What Does Haiti Have to Show for $13 Billion in Earthquake
Aid?” T. Connor, H. Rappleye and E. Angulo. 12 January, 2015.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/what-does-haiti-have-show-13-billion-
earthquake-aid-n281661
400
The Next Giant Leap
537CNN Money. “It’s Getting More Expensive to be a Renter.” K. Vasel. 21 May, 2015.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/21/real_estate/rent-prices-rising/
539Huffington Post. “U.S. Spending Historic Amount Fighting Homelessness, and it’s Working:
Report.” R. Couch. 3 April, 2015.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/03/homelessness-report-2015_n_6987576.html
540U.S. Department of Defense. “DOD Releases Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Proposal.” 19 March,
2020. https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1782623/dod-releases-
fiscal-year-2020-budget-proposal/
541National Coalition for the Homeless. “Substance Abuse and Homelessness.” July 2009.
https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf
542Nature Journal. “Oldest Homo sapiens fossil claim rewrites our species' history.” E. Callaway.
7 June, 2017. https://www.nature.com/news/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossil-claim-rewrites-
our-species-history-1.22114
Craftsman Books. “2017 National Building Cost Manual” 41st edition. Edited by B.
544
Moselle. https://www.craftsman-
book.com/media/static/previews/2017_NBC_book_preview.pdf
Craftsman Books. “2017 National Building Cost Manual” 41st edition. Edited by B.
546
Moselle. https://www.craftsman-
book.com/media/static/previews/2017_NBC_book_preview.pdf
401
The Next Giant Leap
Industry Tap. “World’s Longest and Tallest Single-Arch Bridge Coming to Dubai in 2015.” D.
Schilling. 7 November, 2013.
554Background reading on Channel rail tunnel, Seikan tunnel and Gotthard Base tunnel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seikan_Tunnel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
557WIRED magazine. “Yes, a ‘Submerged Floating Bridge’ is a Reasonable Way to Cross a Fjord.’
A. Marshall. 14 July, 2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/07/submerged-floating-bridge-
isnt-worst-idea-norways-ever/#slide-2
402
The Next Giant Leap
560Fiber Optic Solutions. “How fast fiber optic cable speed is.” 26 April, 2018.
http://www.fiber-optic-solutions.com/fast-fiber-optic-cable-speed.html
Inhabitat Magazine. “One9: Nine-Story Prefab Apartment Tower was Installed in Just Five
561
Kansas City Star. “MAC Properties Opens New Imported Modular Apartments in
562
563National Association of Home Builders. “How Long Does it Take to Build a Single-Family
Home?” N. Zhao. 17 August, 2015. http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/08/how-long-does-it-take-
to-build-a-single-family-home/
CityMetric. “Three Million People Move to Cities Every Week. So How Can Cities Plan for
564
565New York Post. “New York’s Modular Building Revolution is Here.” S. Lubell. 13
September, 2018. https://nypost.com/2018/09/13/new-yorks-modular-building-revolution-
is-here/
566Wired Magazine “The World’s Tallest Modular Building May Teach Cities to Build
Cheaper Housing.” E. Stinton Design. 21 November, 2016.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/cities-can-learn-worlds-tallest-modular-building/
be-born_Index
403
The Next Giant Leap
570U.N. “World’s Population Increasingly Urban With More Than Half Living in Urban Areas.”
10 July, 2014. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-
urbanization-prospects-2014.html
571U.N. “World’s Population Increasingly Urban With More Than Half Living in Urban Areas.”
10 July, 2014. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-
urbanization-prospects-2014.html
573Fast Company Magazine. “Humans were to blame in Google self-driving car crash, police
say.” 5 April, 2018. https://www.fastcompany.com/40568609/humans-were-to-blame-in-
google-self-driving-car-crash-police-say
574Forbes Magazine. “Uber will resume testing self-driving cars.” D. Silver. 3 November, 2018.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsilver/2018/11/03/uber-will-resume-self-driving-car-
testing-in-pennsylvania/#12b330b63d7e
576Forbes Magazine, citing Carinsurance.com. “How Many Times Will You Crash Your Car?”
D. Toups. 27 July, 2011. https://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/07/27/how-
many-times-will-you-crash-your-car/
577CDC. “Impaired Driving: Get the Facts.” No author or publication date provided.
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
Washington Post. “Why the United States will never have high-speed rail.” M. McArdle. 12
579
404
The Next Giant Leap
WIRED magazine. “Hyperloop’s First Real Test is a Whooshing Success.” A. Davies. 12 July,
582
2017. https://www.wired.com/story/hyperloop-one-test-success/
585Dan Johnson Aviation. “Crumple Zones Coming to Light Aircraft.” 12 August, 2014.
https://www.bydanjohnson.com/crumple-zones-coming-to-light-aircraft/
New York Times. “Think Amazon’s Drone Delivery Idea is a Gimmick? Think Again.” F.
587
589Futurism Magazine. “Wireless Charing Tech Lets Drones Stay Aloft Indefinitely.” K. Houser.
7 January, 2019. https://futurism.com/drone-charging-mid-flight
The Verge. “REL’s Skylon Spaceplane Aims to Take on SpaceX With a Reusable Rocket
590
Barrow, John (1998). Impossibility: Limits of Science and the Science of Limits. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0198518907.
405
The Next Giant Leap
Barrow, John (1998). Impossibility: Limits of Science and the Science of Limits. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. p. 133. ISBN 978-0198518907.
595Space.com. “How many stars are in the Milky Way?” E. Howell. 30 March, 2018.
https://www.space.com/25959-how-many-stars-are-in-the-milky-way.html
596NASA. “Hubble Reveals Observable Universe Contains 10 Times More Galaxies Than
Previously Thought.” 13 October, 2016. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-
reveals-observable-universe-contains-10-times-more-galaxies-than-previously-thought
597Space.com. “How Many Stars Are In the Universe?” E. Howell. 18 May, 2017.
https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html
600Brown University, Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs. “United States
Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post-9/11 Wars through FY:2020.” N. Crawford. 13
November, 2019.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/US%20Budgetary%20Co
sts%20of%20Wars%20November%202019.pdf
Statista. “Total interest expense on debt held by the public of the United States from 2011 to
601
2018”. https://www.statista.com/statistics/246439/interest-expense-on-us-public-debt/
602Bloomberg. “F-35 Program Costs Jump to $406.5 Billion in Latest Estimate.”A. Capaccio. 10
July, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-10/f-35-program-costs-
jump-to-406-billion-in-new-pentagon-estimate
603Reuters / Associated Press. “U.S. Army fudged its accounts by trillions of dollars, auditor
finds.” 19 August, 2016. S. Paltrow. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-
army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG
406
The Next Giant Leap
604PBS News Hour. “This is how Internet speed and price in the U.S. compares to the rest of the
world” H. Yi. 26 April, 2015. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/internet-u-s-compare-
globally-hint-slower-expensive
605 Forbes Magazine. “Holding U.S. Treasury’s?” Beware: Uncle Sam can’t account for $21
trillion.” L. Kotlikoff. 9 January, 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2019/01/09/holding-u-s-treasuries-beware-uncle-
sam-cant-account-for-21-trillion/
608In the United States, taxes tend to be aggregated in averages as tax rates vary wildly by
state and occupation. A self-employed person in coastal California would pay substantially
income higher taxes (base rate + 15.3% FICA + up to 12.3% CA income tax) than a W2
employee living in rural Washington State (base rate + 6.2% FICA + 0% income tax).
However, in terms of raw income, the average is disproportionally weighed higher due to
outlying wage earners (“the 1%”). However, average tax rates do not necessarily reflect
this as taxes are both paid on a progressive scale, which does not subject investment
income (capital gains) to the same taxes as wage income. Consequently, for ease of
explanation, it’s easiest and most accurate to use median income + average tax rates to
reflect the basis of the standard American household.
USA Today. “Cost of feeding a family of four: $146 to $289 a week.” N. Hellmich. 1 May,
609
2013. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/01/grocery-costs-for-
family/2104165/
407
The Next Giant Leap
Energy Information Administration. “How much electricity does an American home use?”
612
614Rocket Mortgage. “Are You Average? Here’s What The Typical U.S. Household Spends On
Utility Bills Each Year?” https://www.rockethq.com/learn/personal-finances/average-cost-
of-utilities
615Rocket Mortgage. “Are You Average? Here’s What The Typical U.S. Household Spends On
Utility Bills Each Year?” https://www.rockethq.com/learn/personal-finances/average-cost-
of-utilities
621Statista. “U.S. motor gasoline and distillate fuel oil consumption by the transportation sector
from 1992 to 2018.” https://www.statista.com/statistics/189410/us-gasoline-and-diesel-
consumption-for-highway-vehicles-since-1992/
622Energy Information Administration. “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update.” Figures accurate
as of November 5, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/
408
The Next Giant Leap
623Forbes Magazine. “Why the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) Led to Buybacks Rather Than
Investment.” A. Knott. 21 February, 2019.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/annemarieknott/2019/02/21/why-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-
tcja-led-to-buybacks-rather-than-investment/
Reuters. “Haiti reconstruction cost may near $14 billion: IADB.” P. Fletcher. 16 February,
625
2010. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-quake-haiti-cost-idUSTRE61F43Z20100216
627U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “President Trump Seeks $12B Increase in FY2019 VA
Budget to Support Nation’s Veterans.” 12 February, 2018.
https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=4007
632Brown University, Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs. “United States
Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post-9/11 Wars through FY:2020.” N. Crawford. 13
November, 2019.
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2019/US%20Budgetary%20Co
sts%20of%20Wars%20November%202019.pdf
Brown University, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. “Costs of War.”
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic
409
The Next Giant Leap
633War Resisters League. “U.S. Federal Budget 2020 Fiscal War – Where Your Income Tax
Money Really Goes.” https://www.warresisters.org/sites/default/files/fy2020pie_chart-
hi_resb.pdf
Tax Foundation. “How High Are Cigarette Taxes in Your State?” J. Cammenga. 10 April,
637
2019. https://taxfoundation.org/2019-state-cigarette-tax-rankings/
639Forbes Magazine. “Which States Made the Most Tax Revenue From Marijuana in 2018?” N.
McCarthy. 26 March, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/26/which-
states-made-the-most-tax-revenue-from-marijuana-in-2018-infographic/#733ad63e7085
Congressional Budget Office. “Increase All Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages to $16 per Proof
640
Gallon.” https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2013/44854
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark:
643
410
The Next Giant Leap
645Energy Information Administration. Table 6.07.B. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale
Generators Primarily Using Non-Fossil Fuels. August, 2019.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
646 Hargreaves, Robert, PhD. “THORIUM: Energy Cheaper than Coal.” July 25, 2012. pp 220
647Energy Information Administration. Table 6.07.B. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale
Generators Primarily Using Non-Fossil Fuels. August, 2019.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
648Oil & Gas Journal. “Crude Oil Pipeline Growth, Revenues Surge; Construction Costs Mount.”
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-112/issue-9/special-report-pipeline-
economics/crude-oil-pipeline-growth-revenues-surge-construction-costs-mount.html
649Scientific American. “How Much Water Do Nations Consume?” M. Fischetti. 21 May, 2012.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-how-much-water-nations-
consume/
411
The Next Giant Leap
Oxford Business Group. “Saudi Arabia Expands its Desalination Capacity.” No author or
659
660The National magazine. “UAE’s Largest Power and Desalination Plant Opens at Jebel Ali.”
C. Simpson. 9 April, 2013. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/uae-s-largest-power-and-
desalination-plant-opens-at-jebel-ali-1.455481
661WaterWorld. “Dubai Opens UAE’s Largest Desalination Plant.” T. Freyberg. 9 April, 2013.
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2013/04/dubai-opens-uaes-largest-desalination-
plant.html
412
The Next Giant Leap
413